By Stanley Womack, ResistingDefamation.org

Ever since Proposition 209, the anti-race-preference initiative, was passed by California voters in 1996, various state and local government agencies have sought a means to save race-based government programs.

The opening, true words of an NRO article written in May 2004 by Lance T. Izumi & Sharon Browne (both energetic opponents of affirmative action and, in Browne’s case, a successful litigant).

Well, all those disappointed state and local government agencies need pine after the old days no more.  The San Jose Mercury News reports:-

Students recruit minorities to UC in ways institution can’t

By Lisa M. Krieger

California law bans the state’s public universities from recruiting students based on race.

But it can’t stop student volunteers.

Call it the outsourcing of affirmative action. Stepping into jobs made off-limits to university officials by Proposition 209 - the 1996 California ballot proposition that prohibited public schools from targeting students based on race, sex, or ethnicity - students are reaching back into their own communities to boost diversity on campus.

“We feel an obligation to help open the door to allow for more of our brothers and sisters to enter,” said Fuifuilupe Niumeitolu, a Tongan student at the University of California-Berkeley who is a member of the student group Pacific Islanders Higher Education Recruitment Program. “It is a labor of love, rooted in creating social change.”

The passage of Proposition 209 hit UC-Berkeley’s racial and ethnic communities hard. The number of incoming freshmen from under-represented minorities groups - African-American, Latino, Native American and Pacific Islander - shrank by half.

The numbers are just now beginning to recover. But the campus is still far from reflecting the state’s diversity. Although about 47 percent of public high school graduates in California are members of underrepresented minorities, they make up just 25 percent of UC’s incoming freshman class. At UC-Berkeley, the system’s most elite campus, there are only 15.7 percent.

Under-represented minorities groups.  That’s a new phrase, even from Lisa Krieger, who we at RD judge to be one of, if not the, most consistent purveyer of anti-white American hate-journalism at San Jose Mercury News.  What it signals is a new wedge for ethnic cleansing.

READ MORE...

“Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence. Any man who has once proclaimed violence as his method is inevitably forced to take the lie as his principle.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, whose words those are, has died from heart failure in Moscow, at the end of a long period of decline.

“You can have power over people as long as you don’t take everything away from them. But when you’ve robbed a man of everything, he’s no longer in your power.”

The author, among other works, of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1962), The First Circle (1968), Cancer Ward (1968) and The Gulag Archipelago(1973–1978), historian, Nobelist, and a profund Russian nationalist and Russian Orthodox Christian, Solzhenitsyn belonged nowhere but in the socks and shoes of his own spirit.  Life forced moral judgements upon him wherever he looked ... as a soldier in Germany in 1945 witnessing the murder and rapine of the Red Army, as a witness to the grotesque violence inherent in Stalinism, as a prisoner in the gulag and a persecuted intellectual outside it, and as an exile in the liberal West appalled by the spiritual absence, self-indulgence and materialism there.

Until I came to the West myself and spent two years looking around, I could never have imagined to what an extreme degree the West had actually become a world without a will, a world gradually petrifying in the face of the danger confronting it . . . All of us are standing on the brink of a great historical cataclysm, a flood that swallows up civilization and changes whole epochs.

Solzhenitsyn’s final act of courage in the written word, Two Hundred Years Together (2003), remains unpublished in the West.  It examines in a critical way the nature of the Jewish engagement in Russian life from the partial annexation of Poland in 1795 to 1916.  Whilst it finds that the Revolution was not a Jewish conspiracy, it does dwell on the culpability of Jews where Jewish culpability existed.  For this, of course, Solzhenitsyn has received his due measure of reflexive semitic hatred inside Russia, and his book has been very effectively frozen out in the West.

“It is impossible to find the answer to the eternal question: who is to be blamed, who led us to our death? To explain the actions of the Kiev cheka only by the fact that two-thirds were Jews, is certainly incorrect.”

But the Jewish tantrums will be of no import to our memory of the man.  Solzhenitsyn will be revered in Russia and admired in the West for his moral stature, and for proving that the human spirit was greater than the corruption and violence of the Soviet system ... and, perhaps, greater too than the equally deady - actually, more deadly - dangers of modernity which beset Westerners, in all their comfort and security, today.

“It has made man the measure of all things on earth—imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey.”

Jean-Marie Le Pen, Front National member of the European Parliament, given just 4 minutes to explain the world to Monsieur Bruni, le président de la page trois.

He did alright.

From the BNP website, and originally from fdesouche.com

Lord Salisbury, three times a Conservative Prime Minister and a political giant in a more enlightened age, once remarked, “English policy is to float lazily downstream, occasionally putting out a diplomatic boathook to avoid collisions.”  English, no less!  But I digress.

To illustrate the Anglo-centric point a little further, here’s what the New York Times reported on 4th March 1900:-

Regarding Lord Salisbury’s point of view, for some time past he has taken little interest in American politics, and he is averse to any form of an Anglo-American alliance, believing that the Constitution of the United States is unsuited to such a bond.  To use the words of one who is in the closest confidence of the Premier, “the politics of America have such an influence on foreign policy, and render the duration of supreme power so uncertain, that any alliance would kill itself quicker than any one could kill it.”

Lord Salisbury feels under no obligations to foster pro-British sentiment in the United States.  In fact, for the most part he remains in profound ignorance as to the trend of American public opinion.  His idea, as represented by the speaker just quoted, is to trade fairly and squarely without embroiling himself with any extraneous matters ...

Today, though, English politicians - if that is what they really are - have an altogether different view of their and our priorities.  Here’s Boris Johnson, Mayor of London and currently the most powerful Conservative politician in the country, talking to a reporter from Square Mile magazine about Barack Obama:-

“I was looking at him on the news and just thinking what an amazing moment this is, watching his speech in Berlin and thinking what a critical moment this is for America and for attitudes towards what they can achieve amongst the black community.

“If Barack Obama can do it, it will be the most fantastic boost, I think, for black people everywhere around the world.

... I think a Barack Obama victory would do fantastic things for the confidence and the feelings of black people around the world - that they can win.”

Unfair comparison? The last of the great Conservatives ... and Boris. With a friend.

Asked if his words consituted an endorsement of the Democrat hopeful, Mr Mayor said pithily, “Yes”.

Well, I’m just wondering what a time-travelling Salisbury might have thought about Obama and the American body politic, and the “feelings of black people around the world”.  Presumably, he would have held on harder than ever to his boathook, and to English national interest.  He was flatly against what he called “black men” in the English Parliament, and opposed the Liberal candicacy of Dadabhai Naoroji at the 1892 General Election (Naoroji was elected nonetheless and became the first Indian sitting at Westminster).

Salisbury happens also to have been the man who set up the first city-wide authority in the capital, London County Council - something he later came to regret as “the place where collectivist and socialistic experiments are tried. It is the place where a new revolutionary spirit finds its instruments and collects its arms.”  And, these day, puts them around the nearest example of “black people”, apparently.

In any case, the time-travelling Salisbury would be able to judge from the incumbent at City Hall how completely successful those revolutionaries have been.  We are all MultiCultists now.

By JW Holliday

Leading on from this MR essay, where I asked some questions that needed to be addressed in future updates of Salter’s work, I now repeat and, in some cases, expand upon these here:-

1. Genetic patterns/combinations as genetic interests

This refers to genetic structure, and this has been discussed in detail already – e.g, here.  This is a crucially important point that needs to be expanded. It can certainly be done theoretically and qualitatively based upon the known facts. A quantitative examination would require the services of an objective/sympathetic population geneticist (if such exists - doubtful today) and/or further studies about genetic structure and population differences in said structure. In any case, this topic needs to be addressed in future editions of On Genetic Interests.

2. Compare and contrast kinship genetic interests and adaptive genetic interests

Adaptive genetic interests can be renamed functional genetic interests, since the pursuit of kinship genetic interests IS , of course, adaptive and there is no clear distinction here.

Functional genetic interests are a subset of total genetic interests. A simplistic view would be:-

Total Genetic Interests = Kinship Genetic Interests + Functional Genetic Interests.

That is simplistic because of overlap – some portion of functional genetic interests are also kinship genetic interests, since important functional genes can vary in ways correlated to kinship.

Better:-

Total Genetic Interests = Kinship Genetic Interests + (Functional Genetic Interests – The Kinship Component of Functional Genetic Interests).

Simply put, kinship genetic interests are those genetic interests based upon relative kinship, independent upon the functional consequences of the gene sequences in question, while functional genetic interests focuses on how the gene sequences influence phenotype to make the individual and/or group more competitive, and more likely to pass on distinctive genetic information to the next generation.

READ MORE...

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.