|
|
|
A small anecdote and some reflections on race and culture by John Ray A few days ago I went in to a private hospital to get my hearing tested and a hearing-aid prescribed. I’ve already got one plastic eye lens so a computerized ear comes next. That’s ageing for you. Greenslopes private hospital, impressive though it is, does however have one of those murderous automated car-parks. You have to deal with a machine to get in and out. And it is not easy. I got so frazzled trying to get the machine to let me out that I left all the documentation from the audiologist on top of it when I could finally drive away - a fact I did not realise until I arrived home. So what to do? One thing I was NOT going to do was negotiate that accursed machine again. So I just thought to myself that some kind person would find my documentation and take it to the audiologists - who would return it to me. And that is exactly what happened. I received it in the mail today. Now isn’t that nice to live in a largish city and still get treated with village courtesy? But it is no coincidence. I trust my fellow Anglo/European-Australians to be like that: generally, good kind people. And that’s because the Australian population is still overwhelmingly white. You would have to go to Eastern Europe to find a whiter country. Of course, it sounds racially-bigoted when it’s said just like that. But for several years now, to attribute Australia’s friendly civility to race has been mainstream sociology, albeit somewhat inconveniently so for the almost universally Left-leaning sociologists themselves. In Ottawa in December 2001, Robert Putnam, a left-leaning American political scientist at Harvard known for his research into racial homogeneity, launched a new set of findings on racial diversity and trust. They ran contrary to his own expectation, and to the two theories prevalent in this field, namely Contact Theory, whereby groups gain trust through inter-mixing, and Conflict Theory, whereby the groups do not gain trust of each other but turn inward to themselves as sources of trust. However, even though they did not suit him ideologically, and he certainly hesitated about making them public, Putnam was man enough to publish his findings. What he found was that people who live in racially-mixed neighbourhoods (in his study, neighbourhoods with a lot of blacks or Hispanics in addition to whites) were much more likely to keep to themselves. They stayed home at night a lot more. They made fewer friends. They voted less. They gave less to charity. They involved themselves less in community projects. Racial admixture killed community feeling, to put it bluntly, and it killed it not only between racial groups, confounding Contact Theory, but within them, confounding Conflict Theory. Whites were less trusting of other whites, and society as a whole became more atomised and life meaner. At whatever level these effects kick in, Australia has, so far, largely escaped them. The most recent figures I can find show that Australians are 70% Anglo-Celtic, 18% European and 5% East Asian, with most of the latter being Han Chinese racially. The balance are mainly Indians, Pakistanis and Arabs, with Africans less than 1%. In more recent years, however, Australia HAS acquired just one largish minority, the East Asians - mostly Han Chinese. But the Han are admirable, even exceptional people. They are, in general, quiet, peaceful, patient, intelligent, dutiful, and hard-working. They strive to get on with everybody and fit in well. They do little to cause anyone to stay home at night, and even though they have disrupted Australia’s racial homogeneity, they may actually have enhanced its social harmony. So it was no accident that some kind person returned my papers. It is what happens in a society where people are in general kind to one another because they can identify with one another and sympathize with one another. Although they tend to live their own lives and not really part of diverse communities, and account for only 1.5% of the population, I do not exclude from this Australia’s Aborigines. They are undoubtedly one of the most polite populations on earth. They also have an excellent sense of humour, as well as some well-known perceptual abilities that are quite eerie at times. But alcohol is their great downfall, and often they live in appalling squalor. The lady in my life - Anne - knows them particularly well and has great affection for them, which I can understand. But all silver linings have a dark cloud and Australia has recently acquired one of those too. In recent years a considerable number of African “refugees” have immigrated. They already figure prominently in crime. Sad that as their number increases they may destroy the remarkable and valuable harmony that Australia still has. Not that Robert Putnam would want to accept this possibility. He responded personally to his 2001 findings by launching himself upon several years of testing other possible explanations for the loss of trust. None of them held water. Then in June 2007 he published an article in the Scandinavian Political Studies journal which sought to mitigate the pro-homogeneity message in his findings. He argued that societies drawn from fragmented ethnic sources have been successful at creating new forms of solidarity and identity, that this proved that ethnic diversity was socially viable, and that people could become comfortable with difference. He cited the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration. To what extent he thought the proscriptive character of the military or of the Christian faith was relevant to a (in many ways still) free society like America’s, I don’t know. But Australians could tell him that his point about earlier waves of American immigration was scarcely news. Until recently our population had ancestry that was almost exclusively from Europe or the British Isles. And regardless of whether your origins were Lithuanian, Irish, Italian, German or English, we all saw one another as simply Australian. In most cases, ancestry made little or no difference. Australia, like America, proves that Europeans have solidarity. Unfortunately for Putnam, then, the atomising effect of diversity in America appears to be connected to genetic distance, and specifically, the distances between Hispanics and blacks and whites. Much to learn of human diversity. And shrieks of “racism” when it is discussed come only from fools or the ill-intentioned. This post originally appeared at John Ray’s personal blog but has been expanded for publishing here. Comments:2
Posted by Angry Beard on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:04 | # Off-Topic. Did anyone see the Labour Party Political Broadcast yesterday, shown on all main British TV channels round about dinner time? If you did it was extraordinary.Never mind the unions’ coronation of Miliband minor, this whole broadcast had one theme and one theme only - it was a grovelling apologia for Labour’s decade of open-borders massive uncontrolled immigration! 3
Posted by comment on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:32 | #
Robert Putnam is not Jewish. http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=374
4
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:53 | #
(comment) The article itself seems to suggest this possibility:
6
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:10 | # It was my edit, and a correction has been applied. 7
Posted by jonathan on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:42 | # It’s difficult to keep up all the scientists and philosophers. I had an African-American girlfriend (possible Conflict Fact) in the mid-90s who was concentrating on a different Putnam, Hilary, for grad school dissertation. Reading her papers, I felt like I was reading a blueprint from a computer schematic. Exact logic seemed to be the aim. 8
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:25 | #
You make a good point, Leon, about the distinction between Europe and other places, such as the Northwestern United States, where I suspect there might be greater utility in the contemplation of being toward death among race nationalists. 9
Posted by John Rich on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:04 | # Australians (and their New Zealand mates) are fortunate to be geographically isolated. It’s apparently spared them he fate that has befallen the United States. Two things seem to be the root causes for our troubles in America. First, Mother England and her bloody slave trade brought black Africans in chains, setting the stage for modern racial troubles. Second is the close proximity to Spanish America, which is now causing a tidal wave of a cohort of Spanish-speaking, non-Anglo people. For some reason, America could absorb millions of Irish, Germans, Italians, Poles, Jews, and other European stock. They learned English, and, culturally, became Anglo-Americans. My theory on why the Hispanic invaders don’t assimilate? Geographic proximity of their homelands; far too much traffic between Mexico and Central America and the United States. European immigrants not only did not have that available, mostly they’d hardly want to return to the Old World. 10
Posted by Armor on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 00:32 | # John Rich: “They learned English, and, culturally, became Anglo-Americans.” They didn’t. They became Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans and so on. They learned English but didn’t become Anglo-anything. But the Italians and the Poles were not very different from the Anglo-Americans in the first place, and they began intermarrying. “My theory on why the Hispanic invaders don’t assimilate? Geographic proximity of their homelands; far too much traffic between Mexico and Central America and the United States.” Hispanic invaders and White Americans don’t intermarry a lot because they are not the same race. The same is true of Black Americans and White Americans. 11
Posted by Armor on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 00:56 | # “What he found was that people who live in racially-mixed neighbourhoods were much more likely to keep to themselves.” It also depends if people are allowed to have separate schools, private clubs for Whites, some segregation in the workplace, and pro-White mass media. Even in all White places, the centralized anti-White media contribute to the atomization of society and the alienation of White people. 12
Posted by PF on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 01:01 | # America was already full up of distrust and ripe for conquest because of these so-called assimilated european ethnicities. Look at how whorish our society is and recognize how little it would take for us to proclaim someone had assimilated. Basically the fact that Poles, Germans, Italians, Jews and Croats didnt mass-murder one another on American soil is grounds for our silly social-experimentation-addled thinking class to proclaim that all is well. You or anybody else with ground-level knowledge knows quite well that this is not the case. We get along but the neglect of our original ethnicities is a step into death, a step into the ideational, and I tire of seeing it talked up. It was the blueprint of this original ethnic self-betrayal on which they have always patterned our modern orchestrated racial self-betrayal. Anyone born or living in a zone where disparate ethnicities overlap in America could tell you about the Italian-American/Irish conflicts, the conflicts with East Europeans, etc. I’m not saying its as bad as with other groups, but it does put into question the fundamental nature of nationhood, and outs us as cheats and cheapskates - we basically give these people a free ride into our societies - why? Because (1) our lawmakers didnt stop them from coming, (2) we by nature want to avoid conflict, and (3) we cannot discriminate ourselves easily from them visually. We already let ourselves be conquered by these people - nationhood was not important to us then. Now that we’re not only going to lose our ethnic specificity but even our racial specificity, people stand up and are willing to talk. And they want to talk up the prior abandonment of our nationhood to “whiteness” - whatever. Assimilation is death, its very meaning is to become the Other. Just because Italians didnt bankrupt America does not change this fundamental meaning of assimilation as the dissolving of nationhood. Either nationhood is common birth or it is a common cut-off line for human capital. White enough? Smart enough? You’re in. When we’re talking about the results of this game, lets please not pretend any longer that it doesnt have negative consequences to offset the supposed benefit of “human capital materializing out of nowhere”. 13
Posted by JImmy Marr on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 02:17 | # PF, I like your idea above. I hadn’t thought about things in this way before. 14
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 06:08 | # PF - I see your point. But its also a numbers game. One Pole settling in Italy, one Welsh bloke settling in Estonia, one Italian settling in the US doesnt matter. Its the appearance of whole communities that is most problematical. Then again there are a lot of Poles settling in the UK right now., but there is not much sign of the formation of Polish neighbourhoods, the classic defensive immigrant ghetto strategy. They are scattered all over the place. We are not seeing the formation of communities. 15
Posted by Drew Fraser on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 06:16 | # “In more recent years, however, Australia HAS acquired just one largish minority, the East Asians - mostly Han Chinese. But the Han are admirable, even exceptional people. They are, in general, quiet, peaceful, patient, intelligent, dutiful, and hard-working. They strive to get on with everybody and fit in well. They do little to cause anyone to stay home at night, and even though they have disrupted Australia’s racial homogeneity, they may actually have enhanced its social harmony.” Such Sinophilia is symptomatic of an ethnopathology characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon countries, generally, and Australia in particular. As PF suggests that disorder was produced by the post-war waves of Southern and Central European migration. English Canadians and Anglo-Australians were compelled to reconcile themselves to the loss of the hitherto proudly British character of their societies. Supported by governments, business, the media, and the churches, the Italians, Greeks, Poles, Croatians, Jews, and so on met with some resentment but little in the way of open, much less violent, resistance. So long as Anglo-Australians are replaced by stealth and in a peaceful manner neither Mr Ray nor our former Prime Minister, John Howard, will be unduly concerned. Both men favour the transformation of Australia into a multiracial society, so long as new arrivals can be persuaded to “assimilate” to the norms of the middle-class professional life-style. The consequence of such attitudes is plain to see. The swelling numbers of Chinese and Indian migrants are now displacing Anglo-Australians and, more especially, their children from the managerial and professional classes. That process of demographic displacement has been well-documented by Peter Wilkinson in his book entitled The Howard Legacy: Displacement of Traditional Australia from the Professional and Managerial Classes: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/10 As might be expected, neither the media nor the political class in Oz has paid the slightest attention to Dr Wilkinson’s book. Ordinary middle-class Anglo-Australians, however-particularly those living in Sydney and Melbourne-are well aware that their children have been ethnically cleansed from the selective schools which act as a gateway to the most prestigious and sought-after university places. It remains to be seen whether Australia’s “founding race” will continue to acquiesce to the allegedly inevitable rise of Asian “market-dominant minorities” with a powerful disposition to favour their own kind. Certainly, the majority population in countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines has been less impressed by the “social harmony” that Mr Ray confidently expects to flow from domination by the “quiet, peaceful, patient, intelligent, dutiful, and hard-working” Han Chinese. As Australia slips into D2 along with the USA while China continues to throw its weight around in this part of the world, the presence here of a massive Chinese fifth-column is likely to be perceived by growing numbers as a mixed blessing at best and a dangerous liability at worst. 16
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 12:31 | # Very interesting comment from Prof Fraser immediately above. Are Chinese actually that superior? Why are they displacing white Australians from managerial positions? Is it due to professional superiority, as one would hope (by which I do not mean to minimize the ethical/ethnocultural argument, viz that the descendants of the Founder Race have a perfect moral right to keep their territory for themselves, regardless of what policies maximize financial returns for the business class)? Or might it be due to some type of ‘diversitarian’ advantage; for example, an erroneous belief that promoting (favoring) domestic Asians will help Australia better compete economically in Asia (that allegedly great future marketplace)? I’ve had a lot of experience with Chinese in CA in my life, and though they are as intelligent as whites on average, they tend not to be very creative or particularly insightful - the qualities, far more than mere average IQ, which ultimately propel economic progress (and nations forward, for good or sometimes for ill). There are certainly exceptions, but I do not believe Asians are more intelligent than whites. I think Asians in the West benefit from always being accorded a structural “presumption of necessity” - that is, that diversity is a good in itself, and Asians help realize diversity, without the inevitable lowering of standards accompanying Hispanics, Muslims, blacks or aboriginal peoples. If the Western nations were pure meritocracies, I believe whites would still overall come out on top (with the exception of the unfortunately obviously superior Jews). 17
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:46 | # Leon, I’m sure you are right in your observations. Here are a few of mine. The average IQ of China is 100 to 102. But migration places a filter on that, which can easily be half a standard deviation, and possibly more. Because of the narrow Han bell curve I would say it is at the lower end, but still markedly higher than the European average. In addition, a substantial proportion of the Han migrants to the West are students, particularly language students, and these, obviously, will be a pretty intelligent group. The damage of Han migration (apart from loss of living space and from the tendency to accelerate deracination and depress genetic interests by encouraging sexually unsuccessful Western men to miscegenate) is done through the (a) authoritarianism, (b) conformism and (c) low creativity which characterise the Han, and which they will unfailingly bring with them. As for Jews, their native intelligence is very likely more of a mystery than it appears. They tell many a lie about themselves, for one thing. But they also have hyper-ethnocentrism and ethnic nepotism to guide their advancement in the world. If that were made ineffective, and if they were removed from the teaching of the humanities, from politics and law, from banking, from advertising, from media ownership and journalism, from TV and film, and so on, would they then shine through their superior intelligence in all the areas of life where there is no potential to drive home the culture of critique and herd us towards our own collective end in Olam Ha-ba? Would Jewish architecture, painting and sculpture, literature and music composition blossom, and serve all men? No, because Jewish involvement in these areas just produces more critique, and can gain purchase only through the control of the financial and political channels. Sans critique, sans purchase, what could they do? Would they become farmers, soldiers, car mechanics ... would they enter industry? 18
Posted by Wanderer on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 20:30 | # I would ask the Sinophiles if they have ever been to China. If the Chinese are half as great as is claimed, why have they created a society that is so… Third-World? Dirty, half-dictatorial / half-anarchic, rampant cheating of foreigners, rampant exploitation of their own kinsfolk’s labor, chaotic traffic, spitting, squatting, shoving in lines, arbitrary military presences, and on and on. It is a Third-World country. Is poverty the cause of China’s visible third-world-ism? 19
Posted by Sam Davidson on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 21:16 | #
Good examples of Jewish nepotism can be found in Neil Gabler’s book “An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews invented Hollywood.” Jewish film moguls created their industry by taking loans from Jewish banking institutions, then beat out the gentile competition and used their new position to create jobs for their relatives. For all the talk of “Jewish cosmopolitans”, they still marry other Jews and retain their ethnic identity. 20
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 23:57 | # CNN’s Rick Sanchez fired for telling the truth: http://gawker.com/5653158/rick-sanchez-melts-down-says-jews-control-the-media 21
Posted by PM on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 19:45 | # Lurker “Then again there are a lot of Poles settling in the UK right now., but there is not much sign of the formation of Polish neighbourhoods, the classic defensive immigrant ghetto strategy. They are scattered all over the place. We are not seeing the formation of communities. “ But we did see the formation of Irish ghettos, usually staunchly left-wing, often anti-British. Who can say what effect Irish immigration had on the English sense of self? 22
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 20:58 | # “In more recent years, however, Australia HAS acquired just one largish minority, the East Asians - mostly Han Chinese. But the Han are admirable, even exceptional people. They are, in general, quiet, peaceful, patient, intelligent, dutiful, and hard-working. They strive to get on with everybody and fit in well. They do little to cause anyone to stay home at night, and even though they have disrupted Australia’s racial homogeneity, they may actually have enhanced its social harmony.” They’re also freeloaders, since China does nothing to reciprocate. And that’s being kind. And they’re freeloaders (again, being kind) by definition, since China cannot reciprocate. 23
Posted by McBride on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 19:39 | # Guessedworker: Unless you’re a one-dropper who worries about one drop of Chinese blood diluting the purity of the White race somewhere down the line, this is not something for European men to worry about, it’s something for Chinese men to worry about. Do black men worry about black men impregnating white women? No. Likewise, Chinese women having children by European men spreads European genes, not Chinese genes. The tendency for Chinese women to have (a) low fertility and (b) half-white children is a major reason why Chinese immigration into Western nations doesn’t cause problems. 24
Posted by Silver on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 03:21 | # So McBride’s married to an Asian then. His racial opinions are of course worthless but indicative of the general modern mindset of his kind: they just don’t want race to matter as much as people like Drew Fraser and the MR crowd want it to or insist it does. Doesn’t it trouble Fraser, then, that he strikes his target audience as so unconvincing? How many dinner parties have people like him taken someone by the elbow and made remarks to the effect that “don’t you just loath these people???” only to be met with shocked withdrawal. Oh, you can be cute about it and come at it indirectly, but you always end up revealing yourselves. The upshot is that your own people feel morally reassured that “slow decline” is the way to go; yes, effective extinction is the end game, but who’s thinking so far ahead? 25
Posted by Guido S. Peroni on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 03:49 | # My theory on why the Hispanic invaders don’t assimilate? Geographic proximity of their homelands; far too much traffic between Mexico and Central America and the United States. And they aren’t European. Blacks been here a long time too and real far from home. How’s that working out? 26
Posted by fellist on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:09 | # Leon Haller:
I agree we need an ethical model for restoration even though I think force will ultimately save us. But I think the proper basic distinction is between pre- and post-January 1919 peace conference when the ideal of universal nationalism can be shown to have become pretty well, ah, universal. [see link at my name] Before that Might was Right and those who could invaded the living space of those who couldn’t. If your people happened to be on the receiving end of conquest before WW1, too bad, you’d probably have done it to the other guy if you could. But after the conference of 1919 it’s hard to make the claim that one’s colonising of another people’s living space had any moral legitimacy if known to be against the wishes of the native people. Popular opinion everywhere said it simply couldn’t be legitimate when so characterised. That remains the case and we can capitalise on that, Old and New World peoples equally, insofar as popular opinion is known to have opposed the colonisation. Although the issue is more complex between states and populations that were involved in a formal colonial relationship post-1919, it can generally be settled quite easily by adding a second reference point: the date the colony achieved independence. For example, between Britain and India, you would make distinctions in today’s Britain between Indians whose first Indian ancestor or themselves came to Britain before 1919, Indians whose first Indian ancestor or themselves came between 1919 and August 15th 1947 when India gained independence, and Indians whose first Indian ancestor or themselves came to Britain after that date. There would be no action taken against the pre-1919 ‘British’ Indians or their descendants, a handful of people anyway, except as should apply to all alien and minority ethnies: they would be prevented from organising collectively and lobbying politicians and businesses or having relations with the Indian government. Middle period Indians, again such as can be said to exist at all, would have those restrictions placed upon them, but also, to encourage their leaving, various financial penalties and limits on civil rights would be imposed. All who came after independence in 1947 - and their descendants - would be required to leave and all their assets would be seized. Minimal action would be taken against descendants of all three Indian classes who are part British ethnically, again a small number, perhaps they might both lose the vote and pay increased taxes in proportion to their adulteration. And of course every community would be empowered to prohibit or permit the settlement and employment of any remaining Indians, part-Indians (and other aliens) within its jurisdiction according to its own conscience. 27
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 16:12 | # Excellent comment, Fellist. I shall have to think about it at greater length, though for now I am once again enjoying that feeling of realizing that there are many intelligent whites (so many more than one might ever think from encountering the MSM) who grasp the horrors of our situation, and are creatively working towards solutions (I’d still like to read more practical, organizational insights, but that’s not to diminish the vital importance of our formulating a New Ethics for Survival - I’m one of the biggest advocates of developing this). Your suggestion is most intriguing. I have been groping towards something like it, at least to the extent of trying to justify my intuition that communist slavery was so much more horrific than the American Negro variety. The key (well, one key) is the differing expectations of discrete epochs. I have long thought that slavery would be clearly wrong ... today. But I’m not at all convinced that it was wrong in past eras. Liberals who project their current psychological reactions onto past morally fraught conditions are clearly guilty of anachronism. I may add to this response tonight (USA/PST). 28
Posted by Gudmund on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:21 | #
Communism ruined China, just as it ruined Eastern Europe. Both areas are left in disarray with exhausted, degenerate populations which are pale imitations of the formerly robust races which used to inhabit these lands. The 20th century which saw the populations of both areas murdered in the tens of millions left a terrible legacy which may never be corrected. I do not intend to demean these peoples, but this effect cannot be denied when one considers phenomena like “hypermortality” in Russia and the above-referenced conditions in China. As for the Chinese in particular, while they are intelligent they have never possessed the same degree of creative genius found in the races which inhabit Europe. While Europe enjoyed a splendid development in the fields of science and technology starting in the 17th cent AD, the Chinese remained essentially iron age and feudal until our races discovered them. They also do not possess the same will-to-power found in European populations, which is why I remain skeptical of their capability to achieve world domination as some say is their aim. Post a comment:
Next entry: 10:10 and the violence of the zealous
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 08:57 | #
We need to draw ethical distinctions between the Old and New Worlds. We are in a civilizational crisis of epic proportions. The existing ‘liberal mainstream’ in the West is philosophically untenable (because its practical ramifications have proven socially and politically disastrous). Rejecting ‘affirmative racism’ as well as the various types of multiculturalism is easy: such are either hypocritical and/or plainly incorrect in their tenets - and in no sense morally imperative. But our task, if we are serious about saving the European race, and its civilization, is to reject ‘colorblindness’ - and that is going to require an enormous reconceptualizing of Western ethics (which, several MR regulars might argue, will further require new concepts in metaphysics and ontology - I’m just not learned enough to form an opinion on that extension, however).
That said, I still think we are all being overly intellectual (not in this piece, but as a general matter) - more especially British and Europeans, than “New Worlders”. The situation here seems far more ethically complex. After all, we have had non-white presences here since the beginning. While we whites built this country, and undeniably did everything of real value here, it cannot be denied that we are still, deontologically, a frontier/immigrant people. We go back 400 years.
But you Europeans?! You’re losing what has been yours from time immemorial!! No serious case can be made that non-Europeans have any sort of moral right to be there. At best there are some complications from those actually born there (the second or third generation), though nothing insurmountable: the French established their colony in Algeria long before the Algerians established themselves in France, yet the former were effectively ethnically cleansed. Life is unfair, but I cannot see any moral reason why Europeans shouldn’t tell their “guests” that it’s time to start packing.
So it seems to me that Europeans need to worry about intellectualizing their nationalism much less than Australians or Americans. Rather than contributing to the patriot cause by developing ever more esoteric racial philosophies, I, if European, would put more effort into the practical organizational and media work of explaining the dangers (and costs) of continued immigration. The Continent-wide ‘nationalist minimum’ would seem to be stopping immigration. Without accomplishing that, rarefied ontologies will prove physically, practically useless.
As I said at one point on MR, I continue to see no reason why the British parliamentary system cannot support a single-issue, anti-immigration party - one stripped of the usual nationalist agendas and baggage. Why bring in WW2 revisionism, support for Palestine, national economics, foreign affairs, housing issues, the financial system, evolutionary theory, or anything that a normal political party (or ideological movement) concerns itself with? Why not simply have a successor to the BNP which solely focuses on stopping immigration? Could the EDL evolve into something like this?