One of the most obvious of human instincts is the desire to propagate our genes. We want to reproduce ourselves, which helps to explain not only our desire to have children, but also our instinct to live in continuity amongst our own racial kin.

At one level, the political class recognises this instinct to propagate genes. It is, after all, an aspect of the Darwinism to which the political class strongly adheres. For instance, when discussing human evolution, the Australian leftist John Bradford is happy to explain that,

“Both men and women are driven by the unconscious imperative to transfer as many of their individual genes, and in as great a number as possible, into succeeding generations.”

So what we have is a strong human instinct urging us to have children and to preserve communities based on kinship, with the liberal intelligentsia giving this instinct a strong recognition in terms of human evolution.

And yet, despite this, the Western intelligentsia acts directly against this instinct by advocating unrestricted immigration and racial diversity (John Bradford, for instance, later in his article mocks white men for their “nationalist resentment” in seeking to exclude a world of “others”.)

But perhaps this should not be so surprising. What if the problem that liberals have with the propagation instinct is exactly its importance to individual life? If you are seeking to create a “free” man, who authors his own self as he chooses, then it is exactly the strongest and most deeply felt instincts which will seem most limiting or oppressive and which the “liberated” individual will most want to prove his distance from.

READ MORE...

Racial discrimination is not supposed to happen in a modern, progressive, liberal society, is it?

So what happens when it is discovered that Scotland Yard deliberately promoted a black bodyguard to a prestigious job because of his race? Are the white bodyguards who missed out given compensation? Well, no. In fact, the black bodyguard has been awarded $70,000 in compensation for being discriminated against because he was “over-promoted”!

Strange times we live in, don’t we? Strange enough for a refugee council in Norway to propose buying camels so that nomadic refugees might feel more at home.

Proponents of heterosity (localized novel diversity) tell us immigration “enriches” us through creation of symbiosis.  Theories of horizontal vs vertical transmission predict the degree to which this may be true.  Horizontal transmission is similar to spatial migration—giving a potential symbiont multiple passages for reproduction.  Vertical transmission is similar to spatial restriction—requiring the potential symbiont to “sleep in the bed it’s made” so to speak.  Theory predicts symbiosis emerges under vertical transmission but the result of horizontal transmission is the realization not of symbiosis, but of parasitism.  Indeed, emperical tests now demonstrate that as few as 3 generations of horizontal transmission can result in a tripling of parasite virulence (defined as damage to the host) and reduction of virulence by restriction to vertical transmission is substantially slower.  It should be noted that decreased virulence does not equate to symbiosis.  The time required to achieve symbiosis through restricted migration remains unknown.  This increase of novel parasitism resulting from heterosity deserves its own name, distinct from “diversity”: “parasity”.

READ MORE...

Today I happened across an internet site named Heritage and Identity.  The Heritage in question was said to be British.  But, in fact, it seemed pretty much concerned with Englishness alone.  Out of curiosity I settled down to read an article on the site, somewhat baldly titled Last orders for the English Aborigine.

I should, of course, have realised from the Heritage Lottery Fund symbol on the banner that, despite the emphasis on heritage, the H&I site is a Marxist front.  The Heritage Lottery Fund doesn’t provide grants to nativist interest groups like, for example, MR.

READ MORE...

You know how it is.  A wet Monday morning in unlovely and unloved Croydon.  You are behind your window as usual, gazing down the usual room-full of staring, blank-faced applicants.  They are bored.  You are bored.  As usual.

Seated opposite you is the usual unstarved central African female and small, unstarved child.  Male.  Twenty billion spermatazoa.  Just what this country needs.

She is, as usual, very deferential and so soft-voiced you can hardly make out her replies to your questions.  Deference isn’t to be scoffed at in your line of work.  It has its uses.  But not this time.  Unthinkable.  No way.

You check the date of birth in her passport.  You check that she knows what she has supposedly written on her application.  You check she knows her tragically deceased husband’s name.  You check she is still staying in her council hostel.  You stamp her application documents in three places, retaining the bottom copy to which you attach her spare passport photograph.  You hand the other copies to her with that massive disinterest only a deeply bored Immigration and Nationality Directorate officer of several years experience can properly communicate.  You duly send her on her way to Floor 2 - from whence, Kafka-style, she will be sent ever onward by other equally bored, equally indifferent Immigration and Nationality Directorate officers.

You file your record of her, return slowly to your seat and, resigned to yet another repeat performance, press your floor-button.  The next lucky candidate with the same deferential manner and the same depressingly cock-and-bull story shuffles over.  Not a woman, not even an ugly one this time.  Your boredom sinks to a new level, a chronic one only just above Utter Desolation.

Then young Birch, who sits next to you, leans over and whispers very soto voce but with that familiar enthusiasm of his, “Other end of the room”.

READ MORE...

Today’s Telegraph alerted me to a survey of leading scientific thinkers conducted by The Edge website.

John Brockman, the New York-based literary agent and publisher of The Edge website posed the question: what is your dangerous idea? in reference to a controversial book by the philosopher Daniel Dennett that argued that Darwinism was a universal acid that ate through virtually all traditional beliefs.

Brockman received 116 responses to his challenge from Nobel laureates, futurists and creative thinkers. These were among them

This one from Craig Venter, Genomics Researcher and Founder & President, J. Craig Venter Science Foundation, is a real breath of fresh air:-

READ MORE...

Heterosity (novel diversity in a local area) is usually portrayed by its proponents as yielding a high rate of symbiosis in human ecologies.  This is not what is observed in other ecosystems however.

READ MORE...

To those of us who value real diversity a maddening abuse of language (there are so many these days) is the use of the word “diversity” to describe the colocation of many different types.  This fallacy is so familiar to us that we are accustomed to living with it.  We bite our tongues and stay silent or we try to construct sentences to describe the horror of taking the great diversity of nature and destroying it with technologically amplified mixing of ecologies. 

No more.

A word is needed—something more specific than “multiculturalism”—to replace the use of “diversity” to describe colocation of different types. 

I propose “heterosity”.