|
|
|
Don’t know nuffink abaht jeans and quasi-flosophy does me ‘ead in. But … Yes, yes, I know. The Gene War is still raging elsewhere. But thus far in this extended discussion with GNXPers, the combined forces of MR contributors and commenters have mostly bearded them with the pursuit of the very EGI’s they deny to us. I want to tilt the discussion towards the purely political motives of the GNXP boys and since I happen to own this political hoosegow I can do it, too! Now, the formidable David B has very courageously showed-up on our threads. For that he has my thanks. But not political asylum. I’m throwing in a few observations here about the smoothly fashioned but overt and singular political intent in his Opus Salterium at GNXP. Just taking as an example the piece to which I have linked, David writes: In its primary, everyday sense, we use the word (interest) to designate the wants and needs of individual sentient beings (usually humans, but sometimes other animals). These may be either subjective wants (such as a desire for food or sex) or objective needs, such as survival, but in general we value the latter only as preconditions for the former. Survival is usually in our interest, but not if we are in constant pain, or being kept alive as a senseless vegetable. Senseless vegetables? What price EGIs for senseless vegetables? Or strawmen. Let’s, instead, put it this way: In its primary, everyday sense we use the word (interest) to designate the pleasures and advantages people seek. Obviously, some of these pleasures and advantages hold no implication for our role in Nature. But others do, or we would not exist at all (a world of liberals, for example, could not exist at all). So the question, really, is whether these latter pleasures and advantages are of the individual, as David desires to prove, or not. They’re not. Post “Out of Africa”, we didn’t evolve as individuals but as the members of an ethnic group. So the question we should ask David is: why must you number those pleasures and advantages (such as ideals of attractiveness in the opposite sex and all the striving that goes into attaining that) among the sanctities of individualism, rather than among the commonalities of ethny? The honest answer would be: It’s my politics. But we don’t hear it. To my deeply political and entirely unscientific mind the EGI issue is quite clear. We are driven by Nature towards the pursuit of pleasures and advantages within our ethnic group. Accordingly, the success of individual and group are entwined, and the interest in success is common to all. Since the transmission of our individual genes into the future is our primary Natural function (as well as the objective measure of our success as a living organism) the ethny is our vehicle and its success maximises ours. Individual and ethnic genetic interest are indivisible. David writes: Most women, and many men, have a desire to reproduce, but if they do not, it is strictly their business, and it would be preposterous to tell them that it is in their ‘interest’ to do so if they don‘t want to. But let’s try saying that another way: Many men, and some women, have a desire to defend their homes from aggression. But if they do not it is strictly their business, and it would be preposterous to tell them that it is in their “interest” to do so if they don’t want to. Ah no, that makes all your sovereign individual stuff look a bit poor, doesn’t it David? Well, I’m not sorry about that. You see, David never argues from a position of classical scientific disinterest. He is politically partial yet he never clearly states his partiality. You have to dig it out. I wouldn’t have a problem with that, save that he accuses Salter of being political (which the Great Man doesn’t deny, I think) and us of being racist and white nationalist. Neither of these terms are uttered in the spirit of scientific exploration. It’s simply liberal prejudice. The liberal David writes: Salter’s concept of ‘genetic interests’ is an attempt to base individual interests on the metaphorical ‘interest’ of genes. I am unable to attach any intelligible meaning to most of what he says about it. No doubt he is right to say that ‘the process of genetic evolution is certainly the ultimate cause of our existence’, but to leap from this (which is a statement of fact) to the claim that ‘genetic continuity is the ultimate interest of all life’ seems to me mere gibberish. ‘Life’ doesn’t have an ‘interest’, any more than water has an ‘interest’ in flowing downhill. And even if ‘life’ or ‘genes’ did have an ‘interest’, so what? But let’s try: We are life, dammit. Don’t we have bloody interests? I am intrigued by your use of the example of flowing water. I see Man’s struggle as being against the flow of water for as long as he lives and breathes. For sure, entropy has no interest. But having somehow begun one time in the far distant past, organic life on earth must now defy it to arise and evolve. Life is an act of temporary defiance. The pursuit of behaviours that make possible and extend that defiance (through the medium of reciprocal maintenance) is its interest. David writes: Why should we as individuals put the interest of our genes before our personal wants and needs, or even give it any weight at all? Salter does recognise the ‘so what?’ objection, but his answer to it is just the same old flapdoodle about genes as ‘fundamental’ to our existence. Ultimately, Salter’s attitude towards the genes is more mystical than scientific. But let’s try: Why shouldn’t I put me first. I’m a grown-up now and I don’t want to be told what to do anymore. Nyeargh, so there! Alright, that’s unfair. I admit, the selfishness of liberalism and its neanderthal psychological understanding grates on my sensibilities (Conservatives do have them, David). Anyway, I’ll add: As a liberal, David does not understand the nature of human consciousness. His critiques of Salter are just the same old flapdoodle about “individuals” and “choices”. David’s attitude to politics is entirely speculative, and the speculation is wrong. That is why “free” liberals do not abound everywhere, and why the definition of freedom has to change every ten or twenty years to include brand new categories of oppression. David writes: For whatever reasons, some individuals do feel a desire to promote their own ethnic group. For those individuals, their ‘ethnic genetic interest’ is a genuine personal interest, just as much as a desire to listen to Mahler or to eat toffee. To anyone who doesn’t feel the same desire, it is just as uncompelling. Personally, given a choice between (A) a society of people genetically similar to me who share my own set of values, (B) a society of people genetically different to me who share my own set of values, and (C) a society of people genetically similar to me who adopt a set of values that I find repulsive, I would mildly prefer (A) to (B), but I would strongly prefer (B) to (C). But I don‘t see any basis for telling other people what their preferences should be. But let’s try this: For their psychological needs some people promote the idea that they can select their identity by an act of reason. To these people any unchosen limitation is deeply unwelcome. Race realism, for example, spits right in the liberal eye. So liberals spit back. It’s one of the “choices” David is writing about in the last quote. In English he is saying here: Given a choice between (A) acknowledging the limit imposed upon his reason by Nature and ethny and (b) sharing his delusions of sovereignty with other liberals, he chooses the latter. Unsurprisingly, this is a very common position among such folk as transnationalists, liberal intellectuals and pretty well all those to the traditional left. Like them, David is literally exchanging the pursuit of ethnic genetic interest for the pursuit of a political/philosophical interest. He substitutes phenemena with noumena and accordingly, in his criticisms of Salter, tries to reduce the phenomenon of EGI to the noumenal level of listening to Mahler or eating toffee. It is a crucial deceit. He has to raise the sovereign individual above Nature or his liberalism will collapse. It really is political life or death. David writes: Whatever Salter’s own motives, his theory is being taken up enthusiastically by racists (as a Google search will confirm), and anyone who follows their lead will be tainted by association. Since even by Salter’s own account his theory is not a scientific thesis, but more of a political manifesto, there can be no compelling reason for non-racists to accept it. But let’s try this: The motives of those who attack Salter are, broadly, twofold: for non-Europeans, the pursuit of their own EGI; for European liberals, the pursuit of the delusion of self-authorship. Since David, by his own account, is not particularly of the right and is famously unconvinced about the heritability of racial difference there can be no compelling reason for any non-liberal of European extraction to take him seriously. Or GNXP, come to that. JW has stated that GNXP is a vehicle for the pursuit of the owners’ political objectives. That’s fine. That’s what MR is all about, too. But we are honest about it. Comments:2
Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 10 May 2005 21:07 | # As an example of the kind of commenters with whom David. B shares his “values”, I give the following example: I am not expert enough to sort this one out. I can say this though: I hope you are right! Salter’s thesis, if correct, is one of the few things I have come across lately that really and truly disturbs me, implying, it would seem, a powerful impetus toward ethnic conflict in the future. Even so, I will be man enough to follow the facts and logic whereever they happen to lead, adjusting my responses accordingly. As I told Sailer, if this guy Salter is correct, then I favor the most rapid assimilation of all ethnic groups in America as is humanly possible, as the only way to head off an inevitable rise in racial and ethnic conflict in the future. I offer no advice for the Germany’s, Swedans, and France’s of this world. Every country has got to save its own soul. Remarkably dispassionate I must say. (chuckle) 3
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 10 May 2005 22:13 | # As I told Sailer, if this guy Salter is correct, then I favor the most rapid assimilation of all ethnic groups in America as is humanly possible, as the only way to head off an inevitable rise in racial and ethnic conflict in the future. Profoundly ignorant—first, in its ignorance of the existence of ethnic conflict right now and, second, in its ignorance of the fact that “assimilation” as he envisions it (i.e., the construction of a genetically uniform population) will not follow from widespread intermarriage. What will follow is the erosion of clear dividing lines between and among large groups of people—in other words, the creation of more but smaller races, perhaps ultimately 300,000,000 races in a population of 300,000,000. Brilliant. 4
Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 10 May 2005 22:25 | # Every country has got to save its own soul. LMAO. 5
Posted by John S Bolton on Tue, 10 May 2005 23:06 | # That genetically based potentials for conflict exist, is no excuse for multiplying the aggression untold thousands of times over. That would be like a socialist saying we should kill everyone who is unequal, because inequality sometimes leads to conflict. Such a premiss also assumes that interethnic harmony is a value capable of trumping all sorts of higher values. One of these is the maintenance of natural genetic disease resistance, without which there is no telling what may become of our species. 6
Posted by Svigor on Tue, 10 May 2005 23:40 | # In English he is saying here: Given a choice between (A) acknowledging the limit imposed upon his reason by Nature and ethny and (b) sharing his delusions of sovereignty with other liberals, he chooses the latter. Bwahahahahahaha! Sorry for the useless post, but I really got a kick out of that one!
7
Posted by Svigor on Tue, 10 May 2005 23:47 | # The disconnect between Liberals and Conservatives often leads to Babel. For example I once had a discussion with a Liberal who, after I had shown conclusively the differences in Black crime (arrest?) rates, mean IQ, aggressiveness, etc., trumpeted happily that I couldn’t attach any of that conclusively to even partly genetic causes. My response was of course, “so what?” Is it really necessary to explain the causes of black-white incompatibility to recognize it exists? No! In a very concrete sense I don’t bloody well care why black America is pathological, I just want the fact (and voluntary separation as one obvious solution) recognized. 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 10 May 2005 23:49 | # “Since David [...] is famously unconvinced about the heritability of racial difference” (—from the log entry) Is he? OK, I didn’t know. That explains his outright race-denial comment in the other thread. I never read GnXp any more (ever since realizing GC identifies very strongly with non-whites against whites and, apparently as a result, maintains the site strictly as an anti-white outfit favoring race-replacement of whites, garnering for it the love and loyalty of browns and yellows who hate whites)—I never read GnXp any more, so don’t know David B.‘s positions on things. But the above characterization of them and him make perfect sense in view of what we’ve just learned from his pathetic comments in the other thread. If he’s “unconvinced about the heritability of racial difference” he’s a freaking moron with no business blogging at any site claiming even remotely to be scientifically-based. There, I’ve said it. Sorry, but let’s call a spade a spade. 9
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 11 May 2005 12:30 | # Recall that if racial differences aren’t heritable Darwinian evolution can’t proceed: the most fundamental requirement for evolution to take place is that genotype be expressed in consistent ways as phenotype, the latter being the entity through which environment acts to select genes. Different skin colors, for example, couldn’t come into being through evolution if racial differences weren’t heritable. Nor could any other racial traits. Though this means nothing to a race-denying fantasy-dweller like this star GnXp blogger, it applies to all evolutionary products including species. Is he a species-denier too? He’d have to be. 10
Posted by JW Holliday on Thu, 12 May 2005 16:30 | # GW, excellent post. We should also consider the “extended phenotype” argument. With respect to some of Kevin MacDonald’s writings on group differences on the individualist/collectivist scale, I think it possible that European-derived peoples, particularly North-west European (“Germanic”) types like David B., may be very susceptible to destructive memes spewed forth by people coming from more collectivist ethnies with different evolutionary histories. I’ve been reading about China in Newsweek, as well as Sailer’s recent comments on his blog. Hyper-nationalism is on the rise there. Eugenics practiced in China is for the Chinese only, no “high-IQ” immigration for them. The Chinese are an example of a highly collectivist ethnie relatively resistant to constitutional patriotic calls for the abandonment of ethnic group interests. Unfortunately, those reistant traits seem to be under-represented in the native British population. Contrary to the “we are all the same” claims of certain bloggers, their own behavior underscores the very real possibility of a genetic-based susceptibility towards becoming the extended phenotype of more collectively aggressive ethnic groups. 11
Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 12 May 2005 22:29 | # ...the very real possibility of a genetic-based susceptibility towards becoming the extended phenotype of more collectively aggressive ethnic groups. The “extended phenotype” notion is on the mark. A while back, I saw John Derbyshire use the term “pod people” for those infected by the memes generated by hostile ethnies, and I have subsequently seen the term used once here at MR. It’s an apt description. 12
Posted by bbarlow on Sat, 14 May 2005 20:58 | # “He has to raise the sovereign individual above Nature or his liberalism will collapse.” This just seems like oppressive and mindless collectivism to me. Why even bother fighting the Left on their insistence to fulfill one’s duty to “the poor,” “society,” “the children,” etc. when such collectivist nonsense is replaced by the insistence on fullfilling one’s duty to their “ethny?” People should be able to fulfill their own wants and needs rather than the “wants” and “needs” of inanimate pieces of information with no more conciousness than the 1’s and 0’s on a hard drive. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 14 May 2005 23:04 | # Oppression! Dear God, are you a marxist? Well yes, I suppose you are in a right-marxian sort of way. Obviously, you haven’t the faintest idea what freedom means, outside of your tiresome, second-wave right-marxist, philosophically Judaic claptrap for salad bowl lovers of IQ 120+. Well, what are we to do with you? Wait, perhaps, for you to gain the wisdom not to pass judgement on love. It may have no market value among fabulously free sovereign individuals like you. But it is priceless here. 14
Posted by bbarlow on Sat, 14 May 2005 23:54 | # Pass judgement on love? If JWH’s view of forcing nonwhites and non-racialist whites to move to the “rump” of America is the predominant one at MR, what I am passing judgement on is a radical, violent ideology. It is one thing to view whites as brothers and nonwhites as “others” but quite another to advocate a violent revolution (do you really think people would be uprooted and move to the least desirable parts of America voluntarily?) 15
Posted by Kubilai on Sun, 15 May 2005 01:15 | # what I am passing judgement on is a radical, violent ideology. It is one thing to view whites as brothers and nonwhites as “others” but quite another to advocate a violent revolution (do you really think people would be uprooted and move to the least desirable parts of America voluntarily?) - Birchie Boy Listen up young Buck, extreme leftist ideology does NOT have internal brakes to stop at a certain point when the amount of leftism is “just right” in society. It will continue until it has devoured the masses and itself. Go read some history for God’s sake. For you to put the blame on people who do NOT wish to be engulfed by this monstrosity is really, REALLY ignorant and I am taking into account your age. The recipe for a violent end has been put in place by the left and we are being backed into a corner. The end will be when people decide to either succumb to this or fight back which is a natural response. I mean really Birch, do you honestly expect people to “just go along” with whatever the anti-racist, extreme liberal ideologues throw at them with nary a wimper as long as the facade of social harmony is maintained? 16
Posted by bbarlow on Sun, 15 May 2005 05:32 | # I mean really Birch, do you honestly expect people to “just go along” with whatever the anti-racist, extreme liberal ideologues throw at them with nary a wimper as long as the facade of social harmony is maintained? No, I do not, and I hope they do not. But the Left can be fought without resorting to racial nationalism. People like Steve Sailer, Randall Parker, Charles Murray, and yes, GodlessCapitalist are fighting the good fight against the left and acknowledge the importance of individual, race, and sex differences WITHOUT advocating a white-only America. Increasingly (though not nearly enough) the mainstream right is recognizing the need to stop mass unskilled immigration and “anti-racist” ideology in general, in spite of President Bush’s embrace of left-wing nonsense on the borders, the budget, and race. What I am seeing here, however, seems to be a dislike of people simply for the color of their skin and their facial features, given a (pseudo)-scientific veneer by differences in neutral segments of DNA as well as genes encoding for obscure proteins (do you care about someone because you share their CYP2C19 enzyme)? 17
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 May 2005 09:09 | # Birch, Forgive me for my repetitiveness. This is a song I sing too often. But you leave me no alternative ... We live in a liberal political age. Do you understand that? There is no genuine Conservatism present because liberalism and Conservatism are oil and water. They don’t mix. You can have a Conservative age or a liberal age, but you can’t have them together. The most that Conservatism can manage in a liberal age is to display itself as a personal taste (even Reagan and Thatcher never challenged the liberal social and cultural hegemony because to do so is just too dangerous and revolutionary for a democratically-elected politician). Now, I hope that makes sufficient sense to you to be able to move on to the next factoid of modern liberalism. It is culturally marxist. This I can say with some certainty since I am old enough to pre-date the turn to cultural marxism. You are at a disadvantage in this respect, since you have known nothing else. I accept that Americans generally are at a disadvantage here, because they have a fond attachment to the Founding Myth. But their polity is not that of the Founders. It is that of the Frankfurt School. The Popperian salad bowl that you appear to advocate is a close relative (actually one of the Frankfurters was Karl Popper’s cousin!). But, more to the point, the salad bowl is NOT on offer. Libertarianism is not a political option. Libertarianism really is a personal taste and nothing more. It is also a right-marxist taste. So, factoid number three: The mainstream right that is “recognizing the need to stop mass unskilled immigration and anti-racist ideology in general” is, like you, perhaps aware of the dynamic of advanced liberalism but not its over-arching power and significance. The right may mess around at the edges but liberalism is a great engine of change dedicated to freedom through equality, and underpinned by the essential egalitarianism of a one-man-one-vote democracy. It has its roots in universal suffrage. You can’t change things just by messing about with a few policies. You have to change them metapolitically. One quick way to do that is to create a new nation from scratch. Personally, I don’t think the rulers of a white American state would be wise enough to found it on Conservative principles. That Founding Myth is just too powerful. But they might have a century of calm before the worst aspects of liberalism begin to re-emerge. Last little factoid for your consideration: America is not the West. There are 200,000 white Americans but 400,000 Europeans elsewhere. Europe is the beating heart of all Europeans. If it is lost in the surge of Third World populations migrating to it then European man is lost, too. In Europe there is no third way between survival and liberalism. There is only the onrush of time and change. It isn’t a theoretical exercise. It is the life and death not of a culture or of libertarian individualism but a race - your race - in its own, ancient homelands. Europeans can’t pack their bags and go someplace else. How would you protect them, Birch? Or don’t you think they should be protected because the idea of white nations predicated on their whiteness is momentarily too uncomfortable for your conventional, liberal mind? 18
Posted by JW Holliday on Sun, 15 May 2005 12:01 | # Barlow: 19
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 15 May 2005 13:15 | # Birch, what would be wrong with replacing all the Irishmen in Ireland with Pakistanis? Would anything be wrong with that? It’d be easy. Or, how about replacing all the Norwegians in Norway with Koreans, all the Japanese in Japan with Frenchmen, all the Ugandans in Uganda with Bangladeshis, all the Portuguese in Portugal with Swiss-Germans, all the Greeks in Greece with Cambodians, all the Vietnamese in Vietnam with Germans, and all the Israelis in Israel with Somali Bantus? Anything wrong with any of that in the slightest, that you can see? I wanted to add: if you don’t answer this question before shooting your mouth off again—if you avoid it—you’re a complete asshole. But it’s not my blog and that’s rude, and I don’t want to shock my friends at this blog, or offend GW who runs it, or show ingratitude for the hospitality he’s shown me by being inhospitable to his other guests here, or be so rude that he bans me, and so I won’t add that additional bit. (That doesn’t make it any less true, though: if you don’t answer my question you’re an asshole, but for the reasons I cited I won’t officially state that here. The same goes for David B. As for Arcane, he’s already more or less answered it, at least indirectly—he’s indicated indirectly, if memory serves, that he’s against race-replacement immigration being forced down people’s throats—so he’s exempt.) 20
Posted by JW Holliday on Sun, 15 May 2005 15:27 | # As I have already posted (GNXPers simply ignore what they are unable to answer) GNXP arguments about ideals fail even if we completely ignore genes for the time being. Barlow and his ilk say: “Why can’t people do what they want?” Very well. But when white folks say that they want to live in a European-American ethno-state free of the likes of Razib and Godless, then the GNXPers get hysterical and tell us we cannot have that. After that inconsistency, in which we see that “freedom” and “liberty” and “wants” are just the velvet glove concealing the Stalinist fist, the GNXPers shift gears to talk about cognitive elitism. However, cognitive elitism has objective utility only if it enhances the quality of life, and supporters of this ideal tell us exactly how this quality will be improved. But - oh my! - David B. tells us that life has no interests, just like flowing water has no interests. But, if life has no interests, then quality of life is not an interest; who cares then about cognitive elitism? Or, if they switch gears again and claim life does have interests, then why isn’t existence and continuity of life at least as important as any of the interests they claim? And, why isn’t homogeneity a legitimate preference as part of life’s quality; after all, that seems to be a given for most Asian peoples? What use quality of life if the peoples I care about have a diminished life continuity? Whose life is being enhanced with the greater quality? Who defines quality of life if there are no absolutes and if even we cannot agree that life has any interests at all? And so on. At least Salter is consistent in that he is a universal nationalist who agrees that all peoples should enjoy the group continuity that he wants for his own people. That’s a whole lot better than folks talking about “freedom” and “wants” while they repress the wants of others, or who talk about things to improve the quality of life while their fellows claim that life has no interests. 21
Posted by bb on Sun, 15 May 2005 16:37 | # Birch, what would be wrong with replacing all the Irishmen in Ireland with Pakistanis? Would anything be wrong with that? It’d be easy. Or, how about replacing all the Norwegians in Norway with Koreans, all the Japanese in Japan with Frenchmen, all the Ugandans in Uganda with Bangladeshis, all the Portuguese in Portugal with Swiss-Germans, all the Greeks in Greece with Cambodians, all the Vietnamese in Vietnam with Germans, and all the Israelis in Israel with Somali Bantus? Anything wrong with any of that in the slightest, that you can see? Yes, there would be something wrong with those scenarios. People should be able to stay in their homelands without agression from other countries. 22
Posted by bb on Sun, 15 May 2005 16:50 | # JWH— 23
Posted by Kubilai on Sun, 15 May 2005 17:07 | # No, I do not, and I hope they do not. But the Left can be fought without resorting to racial nationalism. People like Steve Sailer, Randall Parker, Charles Murray, and yes, GodlessCapitalist are fighting the good fight against the left and acknowledge the importance of individual, race, and sex differences WITHOUT advocating a white-only America. - Birch Well Birch, I am glad you do not want us to just go along with extinctionist ideology. That’s a start. Then the rest of your post falls apart. GW, Fred, and JW have responded to your post much more thoroughly and eloquently than I can, so I ask you to READ and UNDERSTAND what they say. Give their words more than a superficial gloss over before going back to your comfort zone of liberal ideology and egalitarianism. Let me add a couple of points. You give examples of Sailer, Parker, and Murray as people who do not want a racially pure country and are content with a multiracial state. That may or may not be true and we will never know unless we speak to each of them in the strictest of confidence. You see, they all have a tremendous amount to lose if they go to that next logical, unmentioned step. Sam Francis, may he rest in peace, went that next step and was vilified for the rest of his career. He lost a tremendous amount of earning potential and lucrative jobs due to his beliefs and was forced to live in less than comfortable and ideal living conditions. He was forced to live amongst the non-Whites he railed against. The people you mentioned are all aware of this and the potential catastrophe that will befall them if they decide to be more open about it. They have decided to fight the fight in a more appealing, PC sort of way while still trying to make a point. This is my opinion only, though it makes perfect sense to me. Pro-European White advocates know where they stand and they are not oblivious to this precarious situation. I’m not even going to answer anything about “GC”. He is a vile little man with the most obvious of ulterior motives. Another point I want to make is that I live and work with a tremendous amount of South Asian and East Asian people. Yes, most if not all are nice, hard working people and I enjoy their company and conversations many times. That, however, is NOT the point. The point is the groups I deal with are successful and are “content” now since they have become successful. They have DISPLACED Whites that could have been doing their work. Their children have displaced White children that could be in the schools they go to. They do not their jobs better than Whites could have and in many instances I have mentioned before, do it far worse and with the mentality of back home, namely India and China. All they really do is TAKE food off our plates, plain and simple. And I can go on and state further that they all have a little “GC” in their thinking. While I wish none of them any ill will, I do not think it is necessary by any stretch to have them here to “help” us. We have done and will continue to do quite well WITHOUT them. You hear? We do NOT NEED them no matter how it is twisted to fit their personal agendas. As GW stated, once we lose Europe, we as a people are lost forever. Europe should be our primary focus and then the “New Worlds”. I do not know how this will play out and if it is within Europe to save itself. I don’t know if the US will be the “saviour” for our people though if it is, it will be a consolation prize of sorts. P.S. as to Derbyshire, he married an Asian with mixed children and his view is obviously tainted. He has done his share to adding another nail in the White coffin. 24
Posted by bb on Sun, 15 May 2005 17:17 | # P.S. as to Derbyshire, he married an Asian with mixed children and his view is obviously tainted. He has done his share to adding another nail in the White coffin. Charles Murray is married to a Thai woman as well. I’m sorry, I just don’t think racial nationalism is necessary to fight the left (indeed, I think it is counterproductive), nor is racial nationalism desirable. I’ll admit I have my biases; I have Asian and Hispanic friends, and a strong preference for East Asian women. But I think it is fantasy to think that people like Steve Sailer and Randall Parker are closet JWH’s—indeed, I think they have advocated high-skill nonwhite immigration. 25
Posted by Kubilai on Sun, 15 May 2005 17:25 | # Charles Murray is married to a Thai woman as well. I’m sorry, I just don’t think racial nationalism is necessary to fight the left (indeed, I think it is counterproductive), nor is racial nationalism desirable. I’ll admit I have my biases; I have Asian and Hispanic friends, and a strong preference for East Asian women. Then it is clear Birch, you have no qualms in seeing the extinction of the White race. It is also clear you hold on to your “biases” for dear life because if you would ever allow a novel thought into your head, you think the world will start collapsing around you. Your solution is NO SOLUTION, Birch. Your solution and the behaviour of Derbyshire and Murray is only a slower version to extinction. Argue that point. 26
Posted by bb on Sun, 15 May 2005 17:52 | # Extinction? Who’s talking about extinction here? Letting in several hundred thousand skilled immigrants into the U.S. a year is not going to lead to “extinction.” Nor is interracial marriage, as well over 90% of non-Hispanic whites are married to other non-Hispanic whites in the U.S. 27
Posted by Kubilai on Sun, 15 May 2005 18:11 | # Who’s talking about extinction here? Letting in several hundred thousand skilled immigrants into the U.S. a year is not going to lead to “extinction.” Nor is interracial marriage, as well over 90% of non-Hispanic whites are married to other non-Hispanic whites in the U.S. - Birch Who’s talking about extinction? Why YOU of course Birch! LOL You mean you haven’t given any deep thought in your “biases” and views and how they will translate in the long term? Race replacement is happening as we speak and no matter how much you want to ignore it, it forges ahead at record pace. Several hundred thousand skilled immigrants, HA! Alrighty then, how about we castrate them like the Chinese did to their “immigrants” to make sure they do not breed? You in for that? How about we wall them off and prevent any inter-mingling as the Saudis do. You in for that? Just what the hell do you think these “skilled immigrants” of yours will do once they get here? You never answered WHY we need them in the first place? Have we become so stupid that we need immigrants to live and advance? 28
Posted by Kubilai on Sun, 15 May 2005 18:15 | # P.S. We started with 600K Black slaves and have over 32 Million now in the US. We started with even less Hispanics and have over 32 Million now. And with the breeding practices of Asians, your high skilled model immigrants, just how quickly do you think they will outnumber the other non-Whites? THINK man, THINK!!! 29
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 May 2005 18:49 | # Birch, You did not answer my last commet, which I understand. There have been other folks to attend to beside myself. But I would like to know your position with regard, particularly, to my final paragraph, say by answering the following:- 1. Do you believe the ancient states of Europe should import a population that in 40 to 80 years may out-number the indegenes? 2. IS that wrong per se or merely inadvisable because the aliens aren’t selected for IQ? 3. Would it make any difference to the morality of an eventual white dispossession if the aliens WERE selected for IQ? 4. And if by some miracle you think that the European homelands should stay European by population, what is special about America that it should not? 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 15 May 2005 18:53 | # “Yes, there would be something wrong with those scenarios [of forced race-replacement immigration being shoved down people’s throats]. People should be able to stay in their homelands without aggression from other countries.” (—Birch Barlow, 3:37 PM) Aggression from other countries? Who said anything about “other countries”? How about aggression from élite classes in their own countries, as is going on in <u>the U.S.</u> and <u>Europe</u> right now? 31
Posted by bb on Sun, 15 May 2005 19:43 | # GW, (1 & 2) No I do not. I think it is especially insane to import poor, hostile, bloodsucking Muslims. (3) Whites are very unlikely to be dispossessed if immigrant populations are highly productive, unlike the burger wrappers that make up so many of our immigrants today. (4) Unlike Europe, America is not the ancestral homeland of whites. In any case I do not think that race is that important, except at a societal level (1,000,000 random East Asians are almost certain to be better for a society than 1,000,000 random Amerinds (for example), but immigration should not be random—it should be for the best and the brightest from everywhere). 32
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 15 May 2005 20:03 | # You’re not going to convince BB, any more than you’re going to convince, say, a parent who doesn’t care whether his child lives or dies to teach that child not to run into the street without first looking both ways. This person BB, by the way, isn’t a blogger at GnXp, according to David B. I for one am not going to bother with him any more. 34
Posted by Kubilai on Sun, 15 May 2005 20:45 | # (1 & 2) No I do not. I think it is especially insane to import poor, hostile, bloodsucking Muslims. What about educated, bloodsucking South Asians? (3) Whites are very unlikely to be dispossessed if immigrant populations are highly productive, unlike the burger wrappers that make up so many of our immigrants today. Please provide evidence that this will be the case aside from wishful thinking and the occasional “good immigrant” anecdote. (4) Unlike Europe, America is not the ancestral homeland of whites. In any case I do not think that race is that important, except at a societal level (1,000,000 random East Asians are almost certain to be better for a society than 1,000,000 random Amerinds (for example), but immigration should not be random—it should be for the best and the brightest from everywhere). Just WHO is America the ancestral homeland of? I’m not talking about the land mass north of Mexico, I mean AMERICA. Also, you throw around numbers like it’s going out of style with no evidence to back up any of your liberal assertions. I know you would like to think your views are right, however they are absolutely WRONG. I’m beginning to agree with Fred. You have no interest in hearing anything other than your GC-speak and all its unfounded baggage. 35
Posted by JW Holliday on Mon, 16 May 2005 15:01 | # In response to this statement of mine:- “As I have already posted (GNXPers simply ignore what they are unable to answer) GNXP arguments about ideals fail even if we completely ignore genes for the time being. Barlow and his ilk say: Why can’t people do what they want? Very well. But when white folks say that they want to live in a European-American ethno-state free of the likes of Razib and Godless, then the GNXPers get hysterical and tell us we cannot have that.” Birch is unable to articulate an answer as to the self-contradictory nature of his beliefs. If white people do not want white nationalism now, why the hysteria of people like himself and his master GC about it? And, if white people would want white nationalism at some later date, then “why shouldn’t people be able to do what they want?’‘ But, you see - it isn’t about “people” having the ability to do what they want, it is only GNXPers who have that privelege. Razib should have continued access to his Germanic girlfriends, GC should continue to batten upon the backs of hardworking, non-cognitive elitist white taxpayers for his government grants, and Barlow wants access to his East Asian women. I probably shouldn’t, but I think of him like these “Napoleon Dynamite” types one can see on an American college campus … white guys whose only chance of “making it” is via the fact they are white and thus appeal to East Asian women in certain departments above East Asian men? For all these guys race is “unimportant”, but they “just happen” to prefer females of a particular race and trade on certain racial characteristics – or one racial characteristic anyway - to hit the target? But why do they “just happen” to prefer these women to women of their own kind? What happened to the norms encoded in all of those “unimportant” genes Barlow dismisses so easily? Hmmm … do you think these guys just wanna be someone’s hero? And, hey, if you’re going to reject white women you’ll certainly reject a rump America. The racial animus that may exist after a balkanization would kinda limit access to the requisite pliant females? So, OK - let’s help out Birch. Let’s give up activism in defense of our interests so he can score with the nearest Suzie Chan. That’s got to be a good enough reason for anybody to eschew Salter, right? 36
Posted by Kubilai on Tue, 17 May 2005 00:08 | # JW, One hell of a post. You have given us a crystal clear synopsis of the circumferential and flawed logic that the intolerant “left” is infested with. I put left in quotations because the GnXp clan fancy themselves as rightists. LOL Yeah, just because they proclaim there is such a thing as race and constantly put down the Black over there, with nearly pathological glee may I add, then they MUST be rightist or conservative. Riiight. 37
Posted by bb on Tue, 17 May 2005 00:37 | # So, OK - let’s help out Birch. Let’s give up activism in defense of our interests so he can score with the nearest Suzie Chan. That’s got to be a good enough reason for anybody to eschew Salter, right? The reason to eschew Salter and racialism in general is because it is wrong and destructive, with the denial of interracial relationships being only one of the negative consequences of a racialist state. Even Sailer has said that people should marry who they love, regardless of race—or do you think that this is just PC cover? If we are going to divide ourselves based on ethnicity, where does it stop? Iraq with its conflict between Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites? Afghansitan with its numerous clans? The old Holy Roman Empire composed of tiny principalities? We are not living in 1500 anymore, or even the 1920s (when the last major acts restricting Asian immigration in the U.S. were passed). 38
Posted by JW Holliday on Tue, 17 May 2005 13:54 | # Barlow states that Salterism should be eschewed because it is “wrong and destructive”, a comment as informative as saying that “X should be eschewed because it is bad.” But why is it bad? Well, because Barlow says so! He does indicate that the denial of inter-racial relationships is a problem with “racialism” - in other words he is agreeing with my assessment that much of his philosophy is based upon his need to have sexual access to East Asian women. Very good! Thus, the sexuality of East Asian females influences white males like Barlow to promote the demographic expansion of Asians into Western territories. And he claims not to be an extended phenotype? LOL! His “slippery slope” comments on separatism are equally absurd. Let’s look at the history of separatism in the good old USA. The Civil War was a direct result of the presence of blacks, while most modern separatist desires result from dissatisfaction from one or more sides of the multicultural divide. Once a reasonable division occurs, there is no need for smaller and smaller micro-states. Once Slovakia separated from Czechia, they did not proceed to further subdivide. And, Birch, if people want separation, “why can’t people do what they want?” What a hypocrite! One could reverse Barlow’s argument and ask - where does the multiracialism and miscegenation end, Birchie? Until the USA and Europe becomes like Puerto Rico or the slums of Brazil? Note that he cannot answer about the contradictory nature of his beliefs. Freedom is great until whites want freedom from Razib and Godless. Then freedom must be curtailed. Cognitive elitism is great, but what effect does high-IQ have independent of people’s quality of life, and if life is important, surely the type of people and the continuity of those people are important as well? What if people want to value homogeneity over “cognitive elitism?” “Why can’t people do what they want?” Why, indeed! Well, just label it “wrong and destructive” because Barlow can’t have Suzie Chan as a pliable female for his personal, “proximate” interests. What a laughable, illogical bozo. 39
Posted by JW Holliday on Tue, 17 May 2005 14:29 | # Barlow: “Even Sailer has said that people should marry who they love, regardless of race - or do you think So - Barlow thinks that the personal opinions of Steve Sailer somehow constitute an effective argument? Is this what passes for “thought” on today’s American college campuses - weak-minded inviduals unable to distinguish between opinions and arguments, and between arguments and facts? If Sailer’s opinions are so valuable to you, Birchie, then be advised that Sailer thinks highly of Salter and defended Salter’s work on GNXP, stating that David B’s attacks were, essentially, nitpicking, concentrating on potential objections without one word of positive comment. Hmm…I guess Sailer is wrong when he says that, and he is “right” when he asserts a position in line with 40
Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 17 May 2005 15:56 | # The reason to eschew Salter and racialism in general is because it is wrong and destructive Why? Because Birch Barlow says so! Even Sailer has said that people should marry who they love, regardless of race—or do you think that this is just PC cover? Smart people read between the lines and the PC crowd swallows the thing literally. If we are going to divide ourselves based on ethnicity, where does it stop? Iraq with its conflict between Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites? There was this place called America. Read about it some time. You can get a good assessment here. We are not living in 1500 anymore Thats an interesting observation Birch. If the dominant ideology of the time is the only criteria for deciding what to do politically then we have a situation where you would be for Communism in 1925 (its not 1910 you know - the Czar’s gone!), you would be for the Nazis in 1940 (its not the Weimar Republic you know! this is 1940!) and you would be against Nazis in 1954 (this is not 1936 you know!). The idea that thinking people ought to decide what to do politically based purely on the direction in which the wind is blowing supposes that people should consider themselves part of a herd of cattle. I would like to think I have a higher opinion of myself than that. But don’t let us stop you. If you think that you should behave like a member of a herd of hereford, go right ahead. 41
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 18 May 2005 23:42 | # Birch, suppose there were only two countries in the world, China with, let’s say, a million people and England with a million, and suppose the realities on the ground were such that the million English were in the process of race-replacing the million Chinese (and PUH-LEEZE don’t play dumb here—you, along with everyone else on the planet, know EXACTLY how race-replacement “immigration” works, Birch) to the point where things might actually become irreversible and proceed all the way to effective Chinese extinction (social/political marginalization of a small remnant population of Chinamen counting as extinction for all practical purposes—the Parsis, for example, are for all practical purposes as good as extinct right now, though technically there are about a dozen left in the world, or whatever the number is). Would that be perfectly OK with you, Birch (especially you, who like Chinese women)? Or would there be anything wrong with that? Would the Chinese who found themselves in that situation be justified in imposing measures—ones that were reasonable and humane, and hurt no one, immigration restriction, for example—to preserve themselves as a race? Or would that be wrong of them? Anyone who answers that it would be wrong of them is simply being dishonest, with PC the most likely motivation for his dishonesty. You are hereby warned, Birch, so be careful what you say if you don’t want to reveal yourself as incapable of the simplest honesty. Post a comment:
Next entry: Sporting honours
|
|
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— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsAl Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 04:26. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:35. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:12. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) |
Posted by Mrs. Blessed on Tue, 10 May 2005 21:06 | #
Fantastic post, Guessedworker.