By David Hamilton

If anything defeats common sense it is trying to understand how the “Establishment”, the “elites,” apprehend the world around them.  They really seem to believe that somehow out of this ghastly racial chaos a sweet multi-racial harmony will emerge.

It is a neo-Marxist view that after chaos or breakdown there will come not the workers’ paradise of previous Marxist fantasies, but a multi-racial utopia.  Margaret Hodge, then Employment Minister, made a similar point two years ago when she acknowledged problems in her Barking constituency, then added it will be alright when we become a multi racial-society … as if this would appear by magic.  In practice though, they are destroying innocent people’s lives but don’t care because it makes them feel morally superior over those who do suffer..

On BBC Radio 4’s Moral Maze in August 2007 the multi-racialist panel talked and talked about an ideal future … but never faced what is happening in the world around them.  In Alien Nation journalist and economist Peter Brimelow, described these people as “immigration enthusiasts” - like religious enthusiasts the emotion is more important than thinking rationally.  They almost have an orgasm when talking about asylum seekers or granting amnesties.

They do not take human nature into account when discussing race-relations as they do when running their personal life, and can only deal with reality by pretending that ethnics are assimilating or have given up their identities and traditional loyalties. If they do discuss events they employ a little verbal sophistry to avoid the stark reality. Con Coughlin, daily Telegraph columnist and author of books on the Middle East and terrorism wrote on 16 December 2008, of “young Britons” attacking their own country:-

Every month, thousands of young British Muslims travel to Pakistan on holiday to visit family and friends…it is an opportunity to celebrate important religious festivals, such as the Eid feast ... or simply to spend time in the country of their own or their family’s origin.

READ MORE...

By The Narrator

The following is a “meat and potatoes” type of list illustrating some basic concepts and counterpoints to arguments we commonly see.

We’ve all had experiences linguistically dueling with others, so, by all means, add your own talking points to the list.

1. Don‘t waste your time converting atheists.

It has been said that C.S. Lewis’s classic Christian Apologetic, ‘Mere Christianity’ never converted a true atheist but convinced a multitude of agnostics to finally come off of the fence into the believer’s camp. In regards to the issues surrounding race there are similar divisions of people. Those being, True Believes (us), Racial Agnostics and Racial Atheists.  And as with Lewis’s work being most effective at moving the agnostics, likewise we should concentrate our efforts and arguments towards the Racial Agnostics instead of Racial Atheists, who are likely to reject Racialism no matter how compelling the facts presented.

You can generally distinguish between the two through basic conversation.

2. Basic facts.

Most people have no idea about the demographic predicament the White race is in. So tell them that Whites today are in fact no more than around 13% of the world’s population and dropping fast. And what that means is that minorities (non-Whites) are nearly 90% of the worlds population and growing.  Who is the minority here?

Now if they reply with, “Yeah but non-Whites are a minority in The West (or specific countries therein),” you can point out that that argument is simply compartmentalizing the issue.  Two can play that game.  Blacks are a minority in the United States … yeah, and ... Whites are a minority in the Americas.  Hispanics are a minority in America …. yeah, and … Whites are a minority in Chicago, New York, etc …

And often along the same lines we hear that, “It’s an ever-changing world.”

Well, no.  New Technological toys aside, large swaths of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the middle-east (where the majority of humans live) have seen very little to no change in the last one hundred years (or more).  Only in The West is the ever-changing world, ever-changing.  Other areas have been able to integrate new technologies into theirsocieties without much alteration to their day-to-day lives.

READ MORE...

There may be in the cup
A spider steep’d, and one may drink, depart,
And yet partake no venom, for his knowledge
Is not infected: but if one present
The abhorr’d ingredient to his eye, make known
How he hath drunk, he cracks his gorge, his sides,
With violent hefts. I have drunk,
and seen the spider.

A Winter’s Tale, Act 2. Scene 1, speech of Leontes, King of Sicilia

For reasons of familiarity, where a single national model has had to be used for discussion here I have used a post-Britain England - a nation freed from the British yoke, and contemplating anew the grounds for citizenship.  But this essay is about the ethics of the preservation of all the peoples native to Western Europe.  If a white ethno-state ever solidifies in the North American continent it would be adaptable to that too. 

It is an essay of three parts.  The first explores the preservation of our ethnic being as the principle upon which citizenship qualification must rest.  The second is about the rights of the collective over those of the individual. The last is about the primacy of justice for all the wrongs done to us these last six decades over justice for all those who find themselves nationless through no fault of their own.

Jus sanguinis endogamous

Ethnic cleansing, forced removals, racial purity, the one drop rule ... these are some of the names that have been given to that spider in the cup.  Some are more vexing than others ... vexing, that is, to one steeped only in the morals and sensibilities of the liberalism that has gripped the West since the end of World War Two.  But any thinking nationalist who is seriously intent on confronting the issue of blood, soil and citizenship in a post-liberal age must arm himself with an ethical counterweight to these morals and sensibilities - one that licences the survival of his people.

The legal basis for citizenship of a modern Western nation tends to be drawn as widely as possible.  Birth to at least one citizen by blood (Jus sanguinis), birth within the borders of the nation (Jus solis), and naturalization are usually all thrown into the mix.  As a crowd-puller, it works only too well.

READ MORE...

An email arrived in my inbox today from that indefatigable chercheur de la vérité, he of the lion’s claw.  It announced a new addition to his website, titled The Math Sex Gap revisited: a Theory of Everyone.  It features Prodigy eviscerating two papers that have appeared in 2008, both of which found cultural bias to be the cause of the gap, then introducing his own Theory of Everyone which accounts for race, culture and geography.  Culture, you ask?  Only this much:-

We should all be grateful for the thought of La Griffe and all his like.  Without their contribution there would be no counter-argument besides commonsense to those who do their best to undermine intellectual salience for no better reason than it is white and male.  Or as Prodigy says to his feminist audience, “I always enjoy visiting La La Land where a gap-free society defines the goal of human striving.”

By Diamed

Suppose everything you say is true. Do you take satisfaction in it being true? Does it make you happy? Or do you wish it weren’t true and wish it could be some other way?

This is an interesting question, which gets down to the nub of why, exactly, are we crusaders for the race.

My response to this question is I wish what I believed weren’t the case, and that it could be some other way. I have been forced into my beliefs by necessity, resisting the implications mightily as I’m dragged through goalpost after goalpost.

There’s plenty of room for condemning evil in this world, without having to go around looking for categorical foes who we can smash with unrelenting fury, all the way down to the infants in their cradles. However if we spare an entire city of evil-doers because ten innocent nice infants are crawling around in it, it is our innocents, our good people, our women and children who are ravished and pursued with unrelenting fury. In a struggle for survival that has reached the highest pitch, we don’t have the luxury to sort out the good from the bad. Life must come first, justice later. Do I want it to be this way? Am I glad that I can smash infants in cradles and still be moral? That I could bayonet a pregnant woman and still be moral? I’m not glad about it. And yet there it is.

Am I glad that I have 140 IQ and am living in a world average IQ of 90 or so? That a greater IQ gap exists between me and africans than africans and dogs? Not really. Am I glad that life is easier for me, that I can do things others can’t, that ultimately all wealth, power, prestige, and even good health and long life belong as a birthright to me and not to anyone else due to a different arrangement of genes? Not really. The things I love most in life, I wish everyone could have. It takes nothing from me if another person reads the same book as me, listens to the same song, or admires the same mountains. I miss the lost camaraderie. I don’t have any special need to rule others, the only particular benefit is more leisure time. Machines could serve that role much better. I’d rather the world were much, much smarter. I feel like then we could sit down and reason issues out like civilized men. I feel like we could all understand reality a little better, and treat each other better, and treat ourselves better. I’m not happy that nature has dropped the ball and populated the earth with mostly primitive savages and that there is nothing I can do to make them smarter or better (once they are born) because it’s all genetic. How could I be?

The same on a larger scale. Am I glad whites are the best at everything and no one equals us, am I glad the rest of the world is largely a sanctum for the BEAST, a ravening satanic force that unmakes everything it touches and specializes in every living being carrying as much suffering, starvation, disease, stupidity, cruelty, hopelessness and helplessness as it can? No, I’m not glad. I wish all races were free of the horrible fatse they bring upon themselves. I wish they were free of the genes that make them that way. I wish they had the genes that make us like who we are. That’s why I wish the whole world were populated with whites, with genes like ours, so that sort of suffering, that level of misfortune, can’t happen again.

And of course, I am not happy with whites either. It seems to me, we would all be happier if we were elves. Am I happy that there are no elves in the universe to supplant us at the top of the totem pole? Am I glad we have unchallenged mastery of the earth because we are the only half-sane gene combination on earth? No, it’s rather sad. If only elves existed, such flawed, truly wretched beings as the white race would no longer have to carry the burden of our existence. I’ve lived long enough to see that everything about humans, including whites, is so full of evil, that I could wish anyone, anywhere, to replace us, if only they could do better. The cheating, the vulgarity, the needless anger and conflict, the lying, the fickleness, the selfishness, the hypocrisy … how could I be happy that we, we flawed vessels, are the best? Who could be?

READ MORE...

Last February, by way of an introduction, I put up a post about the great German jurist Carl Schmitt.  He is a highly useful guide to the ways of Power.  His elucidation of the theoretics of state power in extraordinary times established the framework employed by many, and probably most, thinkers in this, let’s say, increasingly topical field.  In particular, Schmitt’s concepts of the decision and the state of exception open up the operation of total power for examination like a dead butterfly on a display board.

As Tom Sunic wrote in Homo Americanus: child of the postmodern age:-

Carl Schmitt ... realized an age old truth; namely, political concepts acquire their true meanings only when the chief political actor, i.e. the state and its ruling class, find themselves in a sudden and unpredictable state of emergency. Then all former interpretations of “self-evident” truths become obsolete. One could witness that after the terrorist attack of 9/11 in America — an event that was never fully elucidated — the ruling class in America used that opportunity to redefine the legal meaning of the expressions “human rights” and “freedom of speech.” After all, is not the best way to curb real civic rights the adoption of abstract incantations, such as “human rights” and “democracy”?

What just about everyone with a triple-digit IQ understands is that the events of 11th September 2001 and the subsequent War on Terror have been ruthlessly exploited throughout the West to advance a profoundly undemocratic and disturbing domestic security agenda.  Whether a true state of exception ever existed is highly doubtful.  But Power decides what is moral and what is, in a vulgar sense,  true.  It has decided that its officers shall usurp the legal code at will, and shall stipulate on their own authority the terms under which its citizens go about their business.

READ MORE...

I’ve uploaded a video blast-from-the-past showing one small example an analogue of Leif Erickson’s discovery of Vinland, or the Apollo Moon landings:  Midwest computer networking.

Click here to watch it.

As for what might have been: Imagine the Internet arriving in the home 15 years earlier than it did, completely bypassing Bill Gates and the standalone computer.  Imagine a Midwest able to retain its educated boomers who might have been able to afford families there.  Imagine independent engineering leadership breaking free from NASA’s stranglehold on industrialization of space, not in the 21st century, but in the 1980s.

As I previously wrote for VDARE:

A Reader Reminds Us That It Wasn’t Immigrants Who Invented The Computer Industry

Re: Norm Matloff’s Tamar Jacoby–”Silicon Valley Would Not Exist Without Immigration.” Wrong!
James Bowery .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) wrote:

Matloff ignores the obvious fact that Silicon Valley would not exist without the Midwestern middle class WASPs. As Tom Wolfe documents in his Forbes article:, Robert Noyce and His Congregation,[August 25, 1997] virtually all of the essential inventions upon which Silicon Valley was founded were created by the much-derided, non-“vibrant”, “white-bread”, “middle class” of “fly-over country”. Last month I asked the aging Bob Johnson—former CTO of Burroughs Corporation when it was a leading mainframe company in Minneapolis where he developed the magnetic ink you see on the bottom of your checks—what he thought caused the loss of the Midwestern high tech leadership to the coasts, and he said it was the financial dominance of the coasts. That squares with what I observed while at Control Data Corporation/Cray Research, Inc. The reason Bill Norris and Seymour Cray were able to start CDC thence Cray Research was because they violated SEC regs and went around selling stock at PTA meetings, making a lot of middle class people retire very comfortably. My late father bought some Cray stock early on which helped greatly with his retirement. When I was at CDC in Arden Hills, MN attempting to deploy the mass market version of the PLATO network with Internet-like capabilities (the system that Ray Ozzie (Bill Gates’ replacement at Microsoft) cut his teeth on) in 1980 the primary resistance was from a middle management that, due to the financial press’ hostility toward Norris’s vision of a society disintermediated by computer networking, small high-tech farms and locally produced and consumed essentials—had itself grown hostile to Norris. My proposed solution is simple to state but will perhaps require a war to institute:

Replace all taxes on economic activity with a tax on net-assets, assessed at their in-place liquidation value, at the risk free interest rate (which according to modern portfolio theory is the short-term US Treasury rate) so as to extract all economic rents from the private sector, and then, to prevent public sector rent-seeking in pork-barrel politics, disperse those funds evenly in a dividend to all citizens, as the beneficiaries of the land-trust called the United States. That will not only stop the vicious centralization of power in the private and public sectors, but it will clarify the role of immigration—it is a dilution of the benefits intended for the Posterity of the Founders of the land trust called The United States of America. James Bowery’s previous letter is here.

So Natalie Shook, a young and not unattractive, not-Jewish psychologist at Ohio State University, specialises in ...

exploring prejudice reduction through intergroup contact. Specifically, I am interested in how automatically activated racial attitudes are affected by successful interracial relationships, and vice versa.

Natalie may or may not be room-sharing with her gris eminence, Russell Fazio, but she certainly likes to work with him.  His research ...

centers upon the study of attitudes. ... We have proposed a model of attitudes as associations in memory between the attitude object and one’s evaluation of the object. Our concern has been with the likelihood that such evaluations will be activated automatically from memory upon the individual’s encountering the attitude object. ... In particular, the research has focused upon (a) the influence that accessible attitudes have upon attention, categorization, judgment and, ultimately, behavior, and (b) the functional value of such attitudes. The implications of this view of attitudes are currently being examined in the domain of prejudice. The role of both automatic and more motivated, controlled processes, on race-related judgments and behavior are under investigation. We also are conducting research on the implicit development of attitudes via classical conditioning, attitude formation via exploratory behavior, and implicit measures of attitude.

So what these intellectual lovebirds are setting out to do is prove that white prejudice is learned and can be unlearned.  Their latest two papers, which relate to studies conducted in 2001 and 2002, are:-

Shook, N. J., & Fazio, R. H. (2008). Roommate relationships: A comparison of interracial and same-race living situations. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11, 425-437.

Shook, N. J., & Fazio, R. H. (2008). Interracial roommate relationships: An experimental test of the contact hypothesis. Psychological Science, 19, 717-723.

However, ISO’s press office marketed the Shook-Fazio papers thus:-

READ MORE...