Everyone knows the game:  There are the rich guys, mainly land owners, who are eating the potential children of the young guys by selling out their jobs to foreigners.  They didn’t mean to eat those potential children—they just got greedy and now they’re standing with a knife and fork in their hands, blood running down their chin and a partially eaten—but not yet dead—victim trying to figure out whether to fight, flee or die.  In panic over realization, usually subconscious but nevertheless pressing for consciousness, of the monsters they have become the rich guys are increasingly intent on doing away with the young guys altogether via total disenfranchisement in favor of foreigners (and women) before they get their just deserts.  The young guys are dropping out of college and if they find anything to do they generally find crime or military duty.  Thus we see the development of a very critical measure of how much value young men place on ethnic enfranchisement by dividing white males graduating from college by the sum of white females plus nonwhites.  This gives us some idea of how motivated young white men have been historically by ethnic enfranchisement.  But there are others.  Let’s take for example the young man fighting Germany during WW II.  How motivated would he have been to give his life if he had been forced go to high school for a year in a typical US public school of today?  Indeed, how motivated would the men who built the railroads, opened the land to cultivation and built the most powerful industrial nation on earth have been if they knew it was all going to be given away to foreigners, gangstas, pseudo-libertarians and neocons?  We can rest assured that the US would not have been developed nearly as much as it was.  The young men of those generations would have been just as demotivated as the young men of today by such a vision of the future.  So the question arises exactly how much do the men who have profited from this sellout of heritage owe sacrifices of prior generations of young men and the demotivated young men of today for violating their sacred trust?  Is triple damages adequately punitive?  And what about criminal punishment?

Rebuking newspaper editors for various slurs is a valuable effort because it does make them confront their bias. Here is our response to the Publisher and the Editorial Page Editor of the San Jose Mercury News when they validated an op-ed piece labeling us with the Spanish-language term “Anglo.” This is offered to Majority Rights posters as a possible sample for such rebukes.

Note there is no crying game, no claim of hurt feelings. No passive-aggressive stuff here. No begging, no weeping. But it will have an impact over time because the argument will always appear on the Internet when the editors’ names are searched.

And rebuking the media masters about their hate speech is better than chattering about it among ourselves.

Stan

READ MORE...

For a while now I have been rolling the idea around in my thoughts that race is today, particularly in regards to marketing, what sex once was a couple of generations ago. It is a topic that is taboo, yes, but one that is so biologically unavoidable that it presents a huge untapped resource to those who are willing to broach public (or elite) opinion and use it for creative, commercial ends. My theory is that at some point someone will take the plunge, and if and when the coast looks clear for the more timid, many more will stamped in as well.

Recent developments suggest that companies may be close to the edge of taking the leap; at least one now has:

[N]ew billboard advert for Sony’s white PSP has caused consternation across the US videogaming community. The ad shows a white model dressed entirely in white threateningly grasping the face of a black model. Next to them are the words, “PlayStation Portable. White is coming”.

The ads were developed by agency TBWA, which seems to have a very high-risk outlook. From their site, they provide an view of their philosophy:

Disruption is a tool for change and an agent of growth: a working methodology and a life view philosophy.

The word is difficult, uncomfortable but “Disruption” is not destructive. It is creation. Disruption is a means of creating something dynamic to replace something that has become static.

Disruption is the art of asking better questions, challenging conventional wisdom and overturning assumptions and prejudices that get in the way of imagining new possibilities and visionary ideas.

...

Disruption is a system for people who hate systems. Similar to the concept of open-source software development, Disruption has evolved and matured as communities around the network use, adapt and reinvent Disruption tools for specific market or client needs.

This is to provide an example of the educational work we do among the most hardened of white-haters and Christian-haters. We rarely preach to those who understand the need for majority rights. We take our message most often to those who need instruction.

Be warned that this one falls into the XXX category.

Members of Resisting Defamation range near and far in selecting opportunities for educating persons about slurs and negative stereotypes. We heard about one New Yorker web master of specialized sexual proclivities who persisted in spitting and hissing at “European whites” as uniquely responsible for the rise of “scientific racism” in world history. Supposedly all race ideas originated in Europe in the 1700s and 1800s. So we checked him out.

READ MORE...

Notwithstanding my committment to free speech ‘n all, I think the present disagreements about JJR’s posts have exhausted their utility.  I have taken down two recent, let us say, discursive contributions on the matter.

I have also asked JJR to post less frequently and with greater consideration.  As is well known I have no objection to views critical of the majority opinions here appearing on the blog.  What counts is the quality of the argument, and that is also the stated position of JJR’s critics.

I just want to reinforce once more why conventional political analyses are to be welcomed ... why, indeed, the intellectual cross-fertilisation of nationalism and the conventional political right is desirable and central to our goals.

The following argument is bowdlerised from an e-mail I received this morning.  I hope my correspondent will not object to its employment in the present, rather extraordinary circumstances, but it encapsulates my own feelings and, in fact, goes further - into the very interesting and crucial area of the power of art and thought to motivate political beings.

My correspondent wrote of the fringe and the mainstream, stating definitively that the motive drive to get the European people out of their present danger will come from the latter.  He rejected the notion that the movement of fringe personalities such as David Duke, Don Black and the National Alliance towards the mainstream could have telling results.  Our true leadership will emerge from the mainstream, he said, as it emerged in the Polish underground movement that pre-dated Solidarity, for instance.  They weren’t fringe personalities.  They were writers, academics, politicians and patriots seeking to revive the pre-War Polish political dispensation, but they had in common that they were all pushed aside by the totalitarian system.

Only culture, my correspondent wrote, could light the way to the turning point.  But it would have to be a high and new culture - novels, films, poetry, an aesthetic for recovery and renewal that draws fully on the European genius.  By no other means could we imbue ourselves with the energy and vision for the task ahead.  It will, he said, be a long process, slow to start.  Political hotheads need not apply.

Now, that’s a serious prognosis, and it would do no harm for us to attempt the same seriousness in all the work here.  The rest is, or ought to be, tolerance and, when it’s deserved, respect.

Majorityites have long been lax in identifying ourselves. One reason is that those older than 50 were raised in the USA to call ourselves “American” which usually, believe it or not, was not a term viewed as race-based. Somehow in the 1970s, the term “American” became synonymous with bigotry, racism, and oppression in the hands of the dominant media culture and the corporate entertainment culture.

There are “American” holdouts, but public discourse requires a new naming process. It may seem a small matter, but there are very few attributes that more clearly point out who we are, what we want, and our sense of self-respect than our name.

Somehow we have allowed ourselves to be defined by minorityites in media discussions (at least in California) as, for example:

We’re “whites” when the topic is African Americans.

We’re “gentiles” when the topic is Jewish Americans.

We’re “Caucasians” when the topic is Asian Americans.

We’re “Anglos” when the topic is Latin Americans.

And we are never “Americans” or allowed to use the suffix “-Americans.”

Of course we have the right and duty to name ourselves without reference to any other group. That is, our identity does not depend on its relationship with the identity of anyone else.

READ MORE...

Karlmagnus mentioned the Cambridge economist Robert Rowthorn in a comment on John’s Polish Problem thread.  Here is the Telegraph article that Rowthorn wrote:-

Never have we seen immigration on this scale: we just can’t cope

‘We recognise the positive contributions immigration makes to the country and the economy,” the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said last week. “If we don’t have migration, we don’t have the growth from the economy that we all benefit from.”

He was responding to some concerns about the rate of immigration raised by Frank Field, the Labour MP for Birkenhead - but Downing Street’s claim that “if we don’t have immigration, we won’t have economic growth” has been stated over and over again since Labour took office in 1997.

If you repeat something often enough, you can perhaps make people believe it. What you cannot do is turn it from being false into being true. And the Government’s claim about the economic benefits of immigration is false. As an academic economist, I have examined many serious studies that have analysed the economic effects of immigration.

There is no evidence from any of them that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative.

READ MORE...

This weekend saw much commemoration of the Battle of the Somme.  It is ninety years since the artillery fell silent, that first whistle blew and, bayonets fixed, the men went over the top.

I can’t deny that military action holds a fascination for me.  I would be surprised if any man of my generation has not wondered whether he had it in him to do what his grandfather and, twenty-five years later, his father did.

Some of our sons are answering that question for us today.  This weekend also saw the latest deaths of British servicemen fighting the War on Terror - in a fire-fight at Sangin in Afghanistan.

Take some time to read this account of an otherwise unreported firefight that took place at the precise same moment.  Forty-eight soldiers of C Company of the 3rd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment - with an attachment of airborne troops from the Royal Irish Rangers – fought off a very determined “bunch of Afghans in rubber sandals.”

Excitement aside, the account made me wonder whether the lightly-equipped, friendship-toting British Army has any utility in Helmand.  If it isn’t there to occupy the area in the conventional, lock-down sense, and if it can’t possibly win the goodwill of the people, what is its mission?  The Times’ correspondent, Christina Lamb, doesn’t venture much on the matter, but gives us this:-

I thought about John Reid, the former defence secretary, glibly saying he hoped to complete the three-year British mission to Helmand without a shot being fired.  If this wasn’t a fourth Anglo-Afghan war, it felt very much like it.

Why were we there?  Why had we thought the Afghans wouldn’t fight - they defeated the Russians after all.  And why did everyone in Kabul and London keep insisting that nobody in Helmand really wanted to support the Taliban but were being forced to?

What if they were wrong?  After all, almost everyone in the province now depends on growing poppies.  Whatever the British commanders might say, villagers must see the presence of British troops as threatening the opium trade.

Of course, the operation in Helmand is not at all concerned with poppy cultivation.  It studiously avoids all such inflamatory considerations.  It is a peacekeeping initiative under NATO control (NATO having taken over strategic coordination of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan in the summer of 2003).  NATO’s brief is to facilitate the Afghan government’s “ownership of and, eventually, full control and responsibility for” the country.  So, is order imposed from Kabul an objective which the villagers of Helmand would welcome, surviving as they are principally off the narcotics trade?  We would be living in a very strange logical universe if it was.

In a sense wider than just utility, then, I find myself brought back to Christina Lamb’s existential bastardisation, “Why were we there?”  On what basis does NATO, an agent of the elevated and far-distant “international community”, justify its intervention?  And does it lend any real moral legitimacy?

READ MORE...