Quick, before these stories are removed from the net out of embarrassment see this story from Australia’s widest circulating newspaper, then this reposting of that story by the FreeRepublic.com Fred Thompson supporters, then this riotously funny thread on “FredThompsonForums.com”.

Words can’t describe the humor…  but I’ll try…

Basically, anyone with a modicum of perception sees that centralized old media manipulates public opinion creating fake grassroots support of “democratically elected” candidates.  This has been the dominant form of politics for the 20th century and we’re only now starting to see the facade cracking under stress from the real grassroots Ron Paul campaign arising from the pent up disenfranchisement finding expression via decentralized new media.  So to call a TV personality’s support a real grassroots campaign while calling Ron Paul’s support a fake grassroots campaign is the height of hubris ... and there stops my description of the humor leaving the rest for the kind and gentle reader.

Two points before I comment on David B’s latest nonsense about Salter’s work.

JW Holliday

- - - - - - - - -—- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DB: “I also take the opportunity now to emphasise something I should have done previously: that differences in gene frequencies between human populations are in general fluid and transitory.  Since Salter’s aim is to preserve existing differences, this is fatal to his doctrines. Let us consider how such differences arise.”

I object to David B’s seeming implication that the processes he cites will diminish differences between groups over time, making preservation (“Salterism”) irrelevant.  Actually, in the absence of the mass migration/miscegenation favored by GNXP, drift and selection may actually increase genetic differences between population groups.  Further, looking at the spectrum of genetic differences that separate groups, rather than just changes in specific alleles, the racial groups that exist today have exhibited significant differences from each other for thousands of years, and will continue to exhibit such differences into the future, in the absence of the panmixia advocated by GNXPers (at least, advocated for Western peoples; e.g., “Jeurasian” fantasies, etc).

Individuals from Europe who had contact with members of other racial groups in, say, the classical world, noticed the same differences in phenotype (which are heritable) that we note today. The same within Europe; in the Greco-Roman world, differences of those peoples with the Germans and Gauls were noted.  As discussed by Rushton and others, Islamic scholars of the past commented on the intellectual and behavioral characteristics of sub-Saharan Africans in a manner that would seem quite familiar to a reader of “Majority Rights” today.  I am sure that J Richards can tell us of skeletal evidence that demonstrates that racial differences we see today were in existence in the distant past.  I am also sure that, if Paabo’s Neanderthal project works, and similar techniques are utilized to assay the autosomal genomes of more recent human ancient remains, genetic differences between population groups that are observed today will also be observed in their ancestors - albeit that the exact extent of these differences may change over time, and certainly not always in the direction of lessened differences, as studies on recent selection suggest.

If Salter’s vision of “Universal Nationalism” comes to pass, there is no reason to believe that there will be any significant diminution of group differences and/or that the genomes of the different races will converge over time.  Note as well that, since genetic interest is a relative concept, any degree of distinctiveness between groups, even IF such is less than that of today, will contribute to differences of genetic interest.  Even siblings within a family have different genetic interests from each other, certainly, population groups will always have such differences in the future.

READ MORE...

At Kevin MacDonald’s request, and after having reviewed it myself, I hereby point MR readers to The Occidental Observer.

Perhaps blacks are recognizing this government is about to self-destruct and are staying home to build multi-ethnic gangs in the midwest using young, mother-raised, white boys (and girls) to do their dirty work and be their public faces.  After all, they’ll need cannon fodder when race wars break out.

Sainsbury’s, to use the demotic title for Britain’s second largest chain of supermarkets, is important to the UK retail sector.  These days, it’s true, the Sainsbury family own only 16% of the (reportable) global empire, and prefer the adornments of honours and high office and the sweet odour of charitable deeds to flogging cornflakes and spuds.  But Sainsbury family funds flow like lifeblood into the Labour Party, and no doubt the Tories get their whack too.  So the views they - or their underlings, actually - present to House of Lords committees of enquiry can hardly go unnoticed:-

Sainsbury’s says ‘immigrants better workers’

Immigrant workers have a “superior” work ethic to British employees, according to the supermarket giant Sainsbury’s.

The company said it found immigrants to be more flexible and happier with their terms and conditions in employment.

It added that employing migrant workers in its stores often had a positive impact on the domestic staff. Sainsbury’s was giving evidence to a House of Lords inquiry into the impact of immigration.

In a written submission, it said that it had greatly increased the number of immigrants it employed over the past two years and would likely continue to do so in future.

It said: “We have found migrant workers to have a very satisfactory work ethic, in many cases superior to domestic workers.

“We believe this results from their differing motivations — they want to learn English, or send money home to their families.

“They tend to be more willing to work flexibly, and be satisfied with their duties, terms and conditions and productivity requirements.

“In the long term, this could have a positive effect on their domestic colleagues. In some areas we have definitely seen a positive shift in culture where migrant workers have been introduced, which has led to a more diverse workforce fostering a more engaged group of workers.”

The company, which employs 150,000 people, said it did not specifically recruit migrant workers and looked for the “highest calibre recruit” for any vacancy.

... Sainsbury’s said it had not met with trade union resistance to employing migrant workers and said, as the UK population decreased and aged, migrant worker use would likely increase.

So it’s all there, really ... the argument for a controllable, wage-competitive workforce.  Hardly a foundation for working class solidarity.  So why the complicity of the trade unions.  Are they simply run by too many internationalists and fervent anti-racists who would rather drink hemlock than raise the issue of race?  Or are they simply too craven or too well-in with the political Establishment ... all fixed up for a merry-go-round future of superannuated, semi-detached jobs with NGOs, government commissions and what-have-you?

I don’t know.  But they are not the only dogs, of course, who do not bark.  What about the eerie silence from our elected representatives?  Here’s what the academic, author and libertarian Sean Gabb had to say in one of his Free Life Commentaries:-

Now, I had tea a few months ago with a Conservative Member of Parliament. I put parts of this case [for the decline in electoral participation - Ed] to him. His reply was that his constituents—and he meets hundreds of these every month—barely ever mention these heads of complaint. He would love them to complain about Europe and political correctness. Instead, they complain about poor standards in the schools and about hospital closures. I was an intellectual, he told me. I might want the world to be as I claimed it was. But he was a politician. He had to deal with a very different real world in which people had fundamentally changed even since 1997.

The conversation moved after this to matters on which we could talk more amicably over the teacups. But he was wrong and I was right. The truth is that few people think very well, and most people do not think at all. They are unhappy with England as it has become. But they are not able to say what are the causes of their unhappiness. On immigration and political correctness they are frightened to say what they probably do think. On the other issues they are unable to speak because they do not know what to say.

It’s easy to see from these two conflicting dynamics - the business drive for cost savings and the curiously muddled and downright missing case for the defendant - that there’s only one foreseeable outcome.  And it’s the wrong one.

But imagine what kind of power there would need to be behind the “defendant’s case” to match the business juggernaut and bring it to a halt.  A veritable revolution ... street politics, new parties, free media!  And all in a land of mortgage debt and product fetishism.  Perhaps not, then.

So where do we go from here?

We’ve all seen countless examples of this kind of ad:

Indeed, such ads have become the norm, but rarely does anyone talk about what must be going on in the advertising company meetings producing them.

Is there any way to get an idea of what is actually said between the ad company employees who produce this torrent of propaganda imagery?

PS: And I probably shouldn’t single out ad companies.  I was at a rural elementary school in the Pacific Northwest, where it is basically all white, recently and the “educational” imagery was the black male with blond female photos we are all familiar with coming out of Madison Avenue, except as children.

My thanks to Desmond Jones for this link (pdf) which details a draft resolution before the UN General Assembly on the rights of indigenous peoples.  Since it is inconceivable that the peoples of Europe can be winnowed out of this resolution, even on the grounds of past colonialism, it is a significant codification of our status as peoples even potentially under threat.

There are several formulations in this document that struck me as interesting.  But the plainest and most applicable to our uses is Article 8:-

1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to
forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.

2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress
for:

(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their
integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;

(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their
lands, territories or resources;

(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of
violating or undermining any of their rights;

(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;

(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic
discrimination directed against them

You don’t need me to draw the picture for you.  Our efforts against the replacers and their useful idiots will only be strengthened by this.

On September 30th the left-wing Croatian daily Novi List ran a feature on the European New Right, concentrating in large measure on the figure of Tomislav Sunic.  Tom has translated the page for me, and I’m pleased to publish it below.

Fair treatment by and regular exposure in the mainstream media is still a distant goal for most thinkers and activists on the radical right.  Here is one only too rare example of it.

NEW RIGHT-WINGERS DO NOT TOLERATE TALES ABOUT EQUALITY

The basic attitude of New Right-wingers is anti-egalitarian, i.e. the contention that all people cannot be the same, which is the main differential political and cultural point between the Left and the Right.  They are hostile to Marxism, Liberalism, and on their list of enemies are also the Church, the USA and Israel …

by Neven Santic

When two weeks ago the media made public that David Duke, the former chief of the infamous KKK, visited Croatia in order to conduct an interview with Dr Tomislav Sunic, whose book Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age was recently published in the USA, many became intrigued by Sunic himself, and by the ideas he advocates.  This was especially so when the word spread that Sunic’s house-guest for a few days was sociobiologist Richard Lynn, known for his research of IQ among different nations.

Prof Richard Lynn (left) with Dr Sunic

Tomislav Sunic obtained his doctorate in the USA, and his doctoral theme was framed in his book “Against Democracy”,  in which he criticized American democracy.  For some time he was a professor in that country, and after his return to Croatia he devoted his time to writing and publishing.  In Zagreb he published the book “Ameri?ka ideologija,” in which he attempted to lay bare the American way of life.  Over the last 15 years he has written numerous articles for specialized journals promoting conservative ideas.

READ MORE...