Remember Lester Jones, the interesting social constructionist who troubled to engage with “Recititive” at the Guardian’s “Comment Is Free”?  Alas, shortly after that conversation Recititive was despatched to the gulag by the Guardian mods.  They do like to preserve the intellectual purity of their thought-world, and poor Recititive was judged altogether too polluting.

However, some very similar right-wing swine named “unsanctimonius” is playing with the fire of the mods instead, and today he had an encounter with the aforementioned Lester Jones.  As there are one or two half-useful pointers to debating technique in it I will reproduce the goalmouth moments here:-

The thread followed on a very fine and interesting piece of writing about the illusion of leadership by the (I think) Marxist intellectual Jeremy Seabrook.  It finished with this splendid observation:-

Power and privilege will always find ways round efforts to create economic and social justice. And so it has been in our time. The principal participants in the global theatre are increasingly masks of some gigantic harlequinade or Noh play. The script is pasted in the wings. It is their business to offer prospectuses of freedom and constant improvement to the people, to receive acclaim, to fail, and be scorned and repudiated for their venality and dishonesty. They know this. This is why they tend to expend so much effort providing against the time of their downfall; sometimes corruptly, usually within the loose limits placed upon their right to accumulate and prepare for the day when they will be hounded from power in defeat.

It is the ignoble shabbiness of their role that has created a highfalutin language of “governance”, “high office”, “senior politicians”, “veteran leaders”, “statesmen and women”; as well as the global babble about “transparency”, “accountability” and of course, the “empowerment” and “participation” of the people. The grandiose words are merely decorative. No one should be under any illusion about the emancipatory potential of Barack Obama, and nor should we be quite so vengeful over the shambling figure of Gordon Brown who strings together cliches much as our grandmothers knitted kettle-holders. Their destiny is to strut and fret their hour upon the stage, to exit and not mess with the decor.

“Unsanctimonious” duly praised Mr Seabrook thus (trolling ever so slightly, you understand):-

An informed and eloquent article in a desert of wrong-headedness. Thank you, Mr Seabrook.

However, you omit to mention that the power elite are not merely corporatists but are also coldly determined anti-nationalists whose primary assault on our lives is not economic but racial. The power elite is bound to attempt to kill the most stubborn and salient point of resistance to its absolutist ambition, which is the ancient European state tied to and defended by its people.

Nation-killing and race-replacement immigration - all wildly applauded by the dumb and self-loathing, universalist left - is a power elite crime against humanity. When are you, Mr Seabrook, going to break with your universalist principles and defend your people and their homeland against this attack?

And off we went. Lester Jones, defending his ideological turf next in the thread:-

READ MORE...

“Big Brother” - the king of reality shows - is, they say, coming to the end of the road.  But then along comes Obama to prove that our life as passive consumers of shallowness and narcissism is not over yet.

The 44th President of the United States, apparently, graced Britain with his presence on Friday - a busy schedule of private meetings and no more engagement with the public than the inevitable sight-seeing photo-calls and a quick appearance outside No.10 (the impudent demand to address both houses of Parliament having been rejected on grounds of protocol).  That left little opportunity for we Brits to guage the exact degree of “greatness” Obama is supposed to have about him, falling from his lips and his fingertips like so much fairy gold.  Just as well, really.  We are in a politically carnivorous mood, and probably not well dispositioned towards snake-oil salesmen.

But not so the 200,000 “people of Berlin“ who renounced critical thinking to stand for 45 minutes and listen to what, I suppose, the American media will sell as Obama’s JFK moment.

Because every Democrat candidate has to lay claim to something of Kennedy.  Jimmy Carter had his hairstyle.

Now, everyone should read Obama’s testimony to his own coming greatness and all-round magicality.  So I reproduce the speech in its entirety here:-

“A new generation ... common humanity ... the greatest danger of all ... my father ... give our children back their future ... the moment to stand as one ... listen to each other ... keep the promise of equality and opportunity ... banish the scourge of AIDS in our time ... the road ahead will be long ... the walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrant cannot stand ... learn from each other ... Christian and Muslim and Jew ... aspirations are bigger ...  America cannot turn inward ... will we welcome immigrants from different lands…  trust each other ... this is the moment ... shun discrimination ... our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom ... you too know that yearning ... live free from fear and free from want ... Berlin ... people of”

There.  I think I got it all.

Well, it flirts with a truckload of vacuity.  Can’t deny that.  Alright, there was some foreign policy substance: Obama wants to withdraw American forces from Iraq over a sixteen month period, though only to commit them to Afghanistan.  Or possibly the Horn of Africa because, you know, what‘s happening down Darfur way shames the world, and America cannot turn inward.  Etc.  But getting out of Iraq is certainly a positive.  And, though it wasn’t part of his speech, so is the left-Dem line on NAFTA that he has taken thusfar.  But beyond these and a few other scarcely detailed policy hints, everything but everything is 100-octane aspiration.  John Gast should be raised from the dead to paint it.

Now, obviously, it’s mighty tempting to swing a wrecking ball at anything that has 200,000 naïve Germans swooning over a junior American politician on a dais in Berlin.  But let’s set temptation aside, and also cease accusing this poor man of shallowness, narcissism and having unfortunate ears.  Instead, let’s consider what Obama-speak might portend for white America.

READ MORE...

Several times over the days since his capture I’ve toyed with putting up a post about Radovan Karadži?.  The angle would have been to speculate on his trial strategy ... on whether there really is forensic evidence for the Srebrenica massacre ... on whether the wider claims of a Bosnian genocide actually stand up ... on whether the issues will remain as clear as the prosecution would want, or whether the realities of Western geopolitics will be forced into the open, to overtake the moral standard.  In a word, will Karadži? do what Miloševi? did prior to his death, and lead the Court by the evidential nose.

But the deeper I got into the researching the issues to a depth sufficient to float the intellectual boat, the more I learned how little I understood, or really have any likelihood of understanding, this extraordinarily dark and challenging event.

I did not understand the region and its peoples and their tremendously complex histories.  I did not adequately understand the Bosnian War itself.  I did not at all understand the legalities and precedent involved in bringing a case before The International Court of the Hague.  I did, I felt, understand the geopolitics of Nato in Bosnia and of the importance to the West’s interests in Serbia of bringing Karadži? and Mladi? to “justice”.  But it wasn’t enough.  Discretion won and I deleted my notes.

Karadži?, however, remains a charismatic and slippery figure, comic in his disguise but also admirable in the roguish but resourceful way he lived.  But he still has that word “Nationalism” attached to him and his, we are told, pitiless, genocidal deeds.  For us it is an unjust attachment because Nationalism is not that, but is something born of love.  Still, those who strive to darken Europe at dawn don’t baulk at such distinctions nor hesitate to use the spectre of Karadži? the War Criminal for their purposes.

We are bound to respond in some way, and this post - a not-post, really - must suffice.  Feel free to broach the issue however you please.

Apparently, you and I are criminals.  Or possible animals.  I never got to find out which.

Yesterday at midnight in multicultural Greenwich - the Observational one, not the beatified Mr Ginsberg’s - erstwhile MR luminary JWH alerted me to a rather Sub-Condescending thread at GNXP.  Ever the sharp-eye, he had already posted on it at Western Biopolitics (which, if it isn’t already a staple read for you guys, darn well should be).  He thought I should get up to speed.

So here’s the gist.

Godless Capitalist, co-founder of GNXP and the attack-dog of South Asian cognitive elitism in the Kwa, took it upon himself to contribute to a GNXP thread on Steve Sailer’s self-promoting VDare review of Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam’s book, Grand New Party.  THE political book of 2008, apparently.  Anyway, I will return to it shortly.  First, let’s deal with gc.

Now, both Douthat and Salam - a “Bangladeshi-American” like Razib Khan - are editors at TheAtlantic.com.  Douthat had put up a couple of posts on Sailer’s review, the threads to both of which degenerated into the usual, pointless argument with difference-deniers and the kind of mental dross which manages to make every third word “racist”.

On July 10th Razib - he, we must presume, of the vindictive inter-racial porn link - posted a short entry headed Sailer on Grand New Party.  The thread to this post also got a bit stuck on sticking it to the racially-aware white American - but in that special GNXP way, since the Sub-Con cognitive elitist’s promulgation of human difference is what makes him cognitively elite.  In this spirit Razib unburdened himself of the under-capitalised observation that:-

i don’t think ethnic nationalism is malevolent as such. but it has been pathologized among white americans to such an extent that a disproportionate number attracted to white (as opposed to irish or scottish or whatever) identity tend to have bizarre and unattractive personalities.

Now, a dispassionate, socially scientific mind encountering this unpleasant point of view for the first time might, having established that black racial consciousness and Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism are flourishing all over, ask itself whether “ethnic nationalism” has really been pathologized, or just white racial consciousness.  And if it is the latter, why?  And by whom?

Well, by Razib and gc, for one.  Er, two.  Here’s the latter’s response to his pal:-

READ MORE...

I will begin with a confession.  I haven’t kept up sufficiently with the growth of bioethics in American colleges.  I seem to remember a few years ago reading about the setting up of special “bioethics” departments.  MR touched upon the issue here.

Hardly surprisingly, our take on it then was that the liberal-left and Jewish ethno-centric reactionaries were instituting a strategy to control any damage that genetic science could do to the lovingly-constructed lie of “Race Does Not Exist (and if it does, It Does Not Matter)”.

Ten days ago Stanford University came forward with a portentous set of “Ten Commandments” on race and genetics.  The Stanford Group of, yes, ten not overly Jewish hard and soft science folk issued it in the form of a letter.  There have been many responses to it, but not much that I’ve seen from the radical end of the market.  So I thought I would pitch in.

The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics

Statement 1: We believe that there is no scientific basis for any claim that the pattern of human genetic variation supports hierarchically organized categories of race and ethnicity
The equality of rights of all human beings is an unquestionable, moral claim that cannot be challenged by descriptive, scientific findings. As a normative commitment, equality is fundamental to our conception of human rights, and is not open to debate. Classification by racial and ethnic categories has, at particular moments in history, been used to further racist ideology. In view of concerns that linking of emerging genetic data and race/ethnicity categories may promote racist ideologies, we emphasize that there is no scientific basis for any claim that the pattern of human genetic variation supports hierarchically ranked categories of race or ethnicity. Furthermore, we abhor any use of genetic data to reinforce the idea of between-group difference in order to benefit one group to the detriment of another.

Let’s rewrite that.  All seats are created equal.  Discrimination against a comfy settee because it doesn’t perform well on shooting expeditions is seatist and against the all-conquering morality of Seat Rights.  Intolerance of any design of seat is intolerable.  And will not be tolerated.  Obviously.

Well, I’m sorry to be flippant.  But, really, how is one to react when ten learned men and women adumbrate for months over their supposedly seminal and morally Olympian task and come up with … that trash.  Frankly, I am embarrassed even to have to take it seriously for the purposes of this response.  There is no ethics here, just tenured Nazoid fantasy.

The simple response to give, of course, would be to state that equal treatment under the law is all any person or group requires or deserves.  Oh yes, and maybe make it clear that equality is not a moral value at all, never mind an unquestionable one.  It is, in this present context, a rank refusal to measure Man, made for the purposes of maintaining a political deception.

First impressions have turned out to be right, and bioethics is revealed precisely as the deceitful, faux-moral left inveigling itself into the scientific process to still-birth inconvenient findings.  But no matter.  Knowledge is far superior to, say, wealth redistribution or culture war, and this garbage is nothing better than anti-science.

In 1927 Carl Schmitt wrote in The Concept of the Political “Ethical or moral pathos and materialist economic reality combine in every typical liberal manifestation and give every political concept a double face.”  For “economic“ substitute “racial”, and observe the two-faces of liberalism - the claimant to high principle and the wilful wrecker of our European life.

Statement 2: We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population
Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups, where those groups are defined in terms of linguistic, geographic, and cultural boundaries. Patterns of variation, however, are far from random. We recognize that human population history, including major migrations from one continent to another as well as more short-range movements, has led to correlation between genetic variation and geographic distribution. This finding is particularly true of indigenous peoples; populations characterized by a high degree of interaction with neighboring groups adhere less to these patterns.

Well, thank you very much.  I think!  But let’s get it out in the open, shall we?  Do two Icelanders have more DNA in common with yeast than with each other?  Perhaps.  But it doesn’t matter, because Icelanders are Icelanders and yeast is yeast.  What matters genetically is what makes one an Icelander and the other only yeast.  Or Han.  Or Bantu.  Difference is what matters.  Difference is what we value and understand, and live to advance.  Difference is the product of adaptivity, without which there would be no science, nor would there be Man, nor life.

Evolution and reproduction, and the combination of the two in natural selection, are the great tricks by which life arose and clung on in the margins.  Who can say how many hundreds of thousands of times it was generated, only to disappear again before these tricks were incorporated within?  Denying their value, and the value of the distinctiveness which they engender, is more than anti-science.  It is anti-human, anti-life.  Until recently, the scientific Marxoid left did exactly that.  But now it has to admit that it can’t get away with it any more.

But, golly, you can see that it’s not happy.

READ MORE...

Incompatibility is an issue somewhat at the heart of the analysis on these pages.  But incompatibility came back to haunt us on Thursday when an argument developed between an automatically updated software component and the basic system we run.  The updated component won and took us off-line.

My apologies for that, and the inordinate amount of time wasted while I looked for a solution in all the wrong places - not, I hope, a characteristic of anything else that goes on here.  Anyhow JR resolved the problem within three hours of getting involved, and here we are again.

Thanks for keeping faith with the blog.

By Bo Sears

We had an executive committee meeting yesterday to discuss the issue of teaching readers how to process these strange, defeatist, misleading essays that populate the mainstream media daily.  The concepts we have developed to that end have been scattered here and there.  This, actually, is the first time we have brought them together in what is, to be fair, a pretty cynical approach to discourse warfare. We hope you find it useful.

DEALING WITH VERBAL ATTACKS

One of the difficulties that we have in face-to-face encounters, when we find ourselves under verbal attack, is to be ready with a reasonable strategy. This essay is to address this situation and to provide tools to you to respond effectively.

REJECT MEMES & THEMES TELLING YOU HOW TO THINK

Watch out for the various memes and themes that float through the Internet intended to guide your thinking. One theme is quite famous, and it laments that “when you call me white boy, I can’t call you black boy, because then you’ll call me a racist.” Any time you read an essay that implicitly or explicitly tells you that you cannot answer back for any reason is a fraud, floated by our demographic adversaries to help silence us. You will see that meme frequently, and it can usually be summed up by saying, “I’ve been silenced, there is no way to break into the sphere of propaganda that surrounds me and drowns us.” It’s designed for you to incorporate it into your own thinking.

REJECT MODELING PROPAGANDA TELLING YOU HOW TO ACT

“Modeling” is a verbal or written phrase or sentence meant to be implanted into your mind to tell you how to conduct yourself in a variety of situations. You see a modeling exercise any time you read a news story about the white victim of a hate crime forgiving the perpetrator—it’s just to plant an idea in our minds about how to act in difficult situations. Same goes for many sit-com plots and characters. They’re played out the way they are in order to teach us how to act. Modeling is a very powerful tool that our adversaries have mastered and which the diverse white American peoples are mostly completely unaware of. Now that you know its name, you’ll notice modeling all over the Internet.

STUDYING TECHNIQUES

It is also important to realize that many of our adversaries, especially the ones who seem extremely skilled with the put-down, the short unanswerable phrase, and the cutting shut-up line, study their phrases and lines of argument in college club meetings, ethnic media conferences, consciousness-raising events, and a variety of other events that seem innocent on the surface, but are really nasty little schools for teaching our adversaries how to talk in rapid-fire face-to-face encounters to humiliate us.

DON’T DO NAME-CALLING YOURSELF

Never respond to name-calling with name-calling for two reasons. First, it is important that you never be quoted as using slurs or negative stereotypes in future events. Second, it is completely unnecessary and definitely not part of our diverse white American cultures to do so.

WINNING THE IMPLICIT CONTEST COUNTS

Distinguish in your own mind between winning a rapid-fire face-to-face encounter, on the one hand, and laying out all the facts and history you can, on the other hand, to defeat an attack. If Americans of European origins have a fault, it is to take the insults and derogatory statements on the level of an explicit serious public discourse. Not at all, they are all about winning and humiliating European Americans in the discussion. At Resisting Defamation, we have been frequently surprised by people failing to understand that our online syllabus is a toolbox, rather than a history of the world and the role of European Americans therein. This confusion is understandable because almost all commenters on the dire situation confronting our demographic respond with “global analyses” meaning lengthy web sites that really get into history, culture, who invented what, white contributions, etc. A global analysis is good and interesting, but it is not a toolbox of techniquesto win the implicit battle. European and American histories and cultures can be used as tools, however.

READ MORE...

On July 1st the Canadian government announced the award of its highest civilian honour, the Order of Canada, to Dr Henry Morgentaler, holocaust personality, humanist and abortionist extraordinaire.  Of course, it was ultra-controversial with Canada’s Catholic and pro-life groups.  But a wave of wider protests have washed up the very steps of the Governor General’s house, and scores of past recipients of the award have returned their medals.

Morgentaler, now 85, describes himself as a Polish Jew who survived Auschwitz from 1944, and was finally liberated by the Russians.  He opened his first abortion clinic in 1969, operating at that time outside of the law.  Here’s a comment from Canadian Cynic blog on his activity in those early days:-

... those of us who were alive and watching the coverage during the time of the Morgentaler “protest”, remember a lot more than a man who was standing up for the right to choose. Morgentaler was not upholding some sacred ideal, he was taking advantage of a weak and unconstitutionally written law against the right to choose, (in order to supply a service that many would argue should be provided, to be sure), as a cash business, plain and simple. The best that could be said about his motivation was that it resulted in utilizing clean, sterile, safe procedures.

In essence, he was providing the same services a back-alley coathanger abortionist was, for the same reason, but within the guildelines of medical procedures within the medical community, motivated to do so by the threat of losing his license. When his case came to the light of the media, pro-choice activists flew to his defense, paying his legal bills, encouraging him to open new clinics, and in some cases, even funding the entire startup operation.

And here, if you are wondering, is the legal framework for abortion in Israel, to which Dr Morgentaler did NOT make aliyah after the war, preferring to migrate to Canada and, in due course, to agitate for “personal liberty” in the context of “the silent holocaust”.

Circumstances under which abortion is legal

The termination committee approves abortions, under sub-section 316a,[1] in the following circumstances:

  1. The woman is younger than seventeen (the legal marriage age in Israel) or older than forty.
  2. The pregnancy was conceived under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape etc.), an incestuous relationship, or outside of marriage (children born outside of marriage are not considered illegitimate by Jewish standards).
  3. The fetus may have a physical or mental birth defect.
  4. Continued pregnancy may put the woman’s life in risk, or damage her physically or mentally.

READ MORE...