If Mark Richardson won’t post it I guess I’ll have to I’ve been quietly waiting for Mark Richardson to introduce MR readers to this high-class take-down on John Bradford’s article, The role of ‘loser males’ in elections in the Australian liberal-left magazine, Dissent. Of course, I could have just pleaded with him to put the damned thing up on this site. But then I’d have to have restricted my own, perhaps not very startling observations to the comment thread. Didn’t fancy that. First, then, here’s Mark’s article in full:- A LOSER NATION OF LOSER MEN? How did George Bush win the 2004 election? A left-wing Australian writer, John Bradford, believes he knows the answer. Writing in the left-liberal Australian magazine, Dissent, Bradford argues that it was a backlash by men, particularly white working-class “loser” men, against women which gave electoral victory to the right. In support of his theory he points out that a majority of women, 51%, supported Kerry, and so it was only the votes of men, 55% of whom supported Bush, which got the Republicans over the line. Bradford is right that this “gender gap” in voting patterns exists. But even this starting point for his theory of a male backlash against women is misleading. After all, only 44% of both white women and married women voted for Kerry. It was only Kerry’s considerable support among young female voters (56%), unmarried women (62%) and non-white women (75%) which gave him a narrow majority of the female vote. The “backlash” against the left, therefore, involves not just white men, but also white women and married people in general. So already Bradford’s idea of a specifically male rejection of the left is on shaky ground. Moral values Bradford’s next claim is that Bush deliberately fought the campaign on the moral issues of same-sex marriage and abortion in order to appeal to poor, white males. He did so, writes Bradford, not because such men have an interest in these moral issues, but because many American men have become “losers” in recent times, and the moral issues give them a renewed sense of group confidence and adequacy. Why are American men so stressed that they need to be appealed to in this way? One reason, asserts Bradford, is that the Americans have a free market economy, which is based on exploitation of the working poor, in which real incomes are falling, which is exporting jobs to low wage economies overseas, and which is debt-ridden and “in thrall” to foreign investors. In comparison, the high tax, welfare economies of Europe provide higher earnings, shorter hours and better health levels for workers. Europeans, notes Bradford, are even growing taller than Americans! Of course, it’s predictable for a left-liberal to make this kind of economic analysis. All liberals, whether left or right, see society as made up of millions of competing wills, each trying to enact their own individual desires. Right-liberals believe that the free market allows people to selfishly pursue their own interests and still benefit society as a whole. Left-liberals, though, think that the free market leads to unequal outcomes. They prefer competing wills to be regulated in a more deliberate way by the state. A right-liberal, therefore, is likely to look to the (relatively) free market American economy as a model, whilst a left-liberal will prefer the example of the higher taxing, welfare states of Europe, in particular Scandinavia. The descent of men And now we get to the crux of the argument. Bradford observes that the traditional family has declined in America. Rising female earnings and declining male earnings mean that women are no longer so economically reliant on a husband. As Bradford himself puts it, “Men are fading from the family picture. Women have less need and less opportunity to secure their financial future by economic dependence on men, through marriage or otherwise.” This development, writes Bradford, means that “large swathes of men are being reduced to ‘loser males’” who “can be more an economic hindrance than a help” to modern women. Bradford has a point here. There’s no doubt that young women have become more economically independent and that this undermines the traditional provider role of men. This is something that liberals in general, and feminists in particular, have long aimed for. Liberals believe that we are made human by our capacity to create who we are from our own individual will and reason. Our freedom to act as we will is therefore paramount for liberals. This, in turn, means retaining our individual autonomy and independence. It’s not easy, therefore, for liberals to accept traditional marriage in which people give up a measure of independence in order to pursue deeper needs and purposes. It’s particularly difficult for feminists to accept the idea of women being economically dependent on their husbands, even if it is to the advantage of their families. So the modern liberal state has put a great deal of effort and resources into “liberating” women from an economic dependence on men. It has urged young women to pursue careers and to delay marriage, it has established single mother pensions, it has heavily subsidised childcare, it has set up an apparatus of alimony and child support payments, it has established official and unofficial quotas for women in the professions, scholarships for female students and so on. Bradford, however, doesn’t want to acknowledge any of this. He doesn’t want to assert on the one hand that men are losing out and on the other that liberal policies are encouraging this loss. Instead, he does what liberals often do. He claims that it is inevitable, impersonal forces of history which are driving the changes. Patriarchy According to Bradford, the trouble all started about 12,000 years ago. Before then, there was no traditional family. There was a sexually promiscuous free-for-all (both heterosexual and homosexual) which bonded members of the tribe together. In this system, men had sex with as many women as possible in order to transfer their genes, whilst women consented to sex in order that men would provide food and protection for them. Bradford claims that women held the advantage in this ancient form of society because it was men who had to attract the favour of women in order to get sex. I’m not an expert on human prehistory, but this scenario seems unlikely to me. If the women were so promiscuous, why would a man bother to provide for and protect a particular woman, since he could not be sure that any child would be his own? Nor is it usually so difficult for men, in conditions of promiscuity, to obtain sex - the currency of sex tends to be devalued. So men would not have had to work so hard to obtain female sexual favours. In any case, Bradford then argues that when animal husbandry developed 12,000 years ago, the balance altered dramatically against women. This is when “fatherhood” and “the family” were invented. Men learned from stock herding that it was best to choose a female beast astutely and then ensure that it was only serviced by a chosen stud. They applied this lesson to their own lives and established the monogamous “patriarchal” family. Note, please, how Bradford describes the values surrounding this sudden appearance of the family, “The paramount patriarchal value is ‘fatherhood’, a notion which incorporates power, the capacity to choose, as much as genetic paternity. Controlling paternity, which means controlling women and their sexuality, is at the heart of family systems. Slavery on the one hand and the family on the other, are just particular versions of animal husbandry where the animal concerned is human.” Is it any wonder that the traditional family is in decline when liberals can have these extremely negative views about the function and purpose of family life? Bradford here firstly devalues both fatherhood and the family by regarding them as mere inventions or constructs of a particular historical period. He then undermines fatherhood by describing it in terms of power and privilege. He claims that fatherhood is based on the ultimate sin for liberals of creating unequal wills: of increasing the male “capacity to choose” at the expense of women’s. Finally, he goes further than perhaps any other liberal I have ever come across, by putting the family literally on a par with slavery and describing both as versions of animal husbandry! Not a great basis on which to defend family life. Nor is it good history. According to Bradford, pre-agricultural societies were happy matriarchies, without a formal family structure or restrictions on sexuality. But we actually do know how some pre-agricultural societies operated. The Australian Aborigines, for instance, did not practise animal husbandry prior to the arrival of Europeans. Yet Aboriginal society was highly “patriarchal”, and had very complex family systems and sexual taboos. In many Aboriginal tribes, for instance, the young women had little choice at all about their sexual partners, but were married off at an early age to the senior male members of the tribe. So Bradford has things the wrong way around: European agricultural societies seem to have actually achieved a higher degree of choice for women than more primitive hunter-gatherer societies. Technological change Just as Bradford claims that an economic advance (animal husbandry) gave rise to patriarchy, he believes that modern technology is restoring a matriarchy. He thinks that “modern mechanisation” along with birth control technology (contraception, artificial insemination, abortion) are giving women the competitive edge in the workforce. He writes, “With technological change impacting on sexual relations and an increasingly education-based economy, the marginally skilled “traditional man” has had his job exported, been downsized by technology, and is being ‘fired’, as a partner and a father by women. “His promised inheritance, of a life like his father and grandfather before him, supporting a spouse and several children, is being taken from him.” As I’ve already argued, if men are losing out economically, it’s due in some degree to deliberate government policies designed to favour women in the workforce. But even with such policies, the decline of male blue collar labour is often overstated. In Australia, for instance, we are currently experiencing a shortage of tradesmen to the point that state governments are competing to lure tradesmen to their own states. Technological change hasn’t made blue collar labour redundant. Note, though, the implications of Bradford’s theory. Bradford is arguing that men are losing out because of mechanisation and because of reproductive technology such as abortion procedures which allow women to compete in the workplace unhindered by pregnancy. So, for patriarchal men to restore their competitive advantage and their power, Bradford believes it makes sense for them to oppose what he calls the “innocuous medical procedure” of abortion. He thinks that this is why George Bush raised abortion as an election issue and why “loser men” responded by voting Republican. Bradford laments of these loser men that, “They won the election for George Bush and in the short term ‘loser males’ may continue to win elections for the political right.” It must be said that Bradford has made a logically coherent argument here. But it’s still not persuasive. If he were right, and large numbers of men were moving to the right in order to ban abortion and restore the patriarchy, you would expect men to be more opposed to abortion than women. But this isn’t the case. Polls on abortion usually show men to be slightly more in favour of abortion than women. Furthermore, when asked if there was sufficient attention paid to the abortion issue during the 2004 campaign, men and women roughly agreed in their responses. Solutions Perhaps Bradford does recognise that there are many women, as well as men, who oppose both the Democrats and abortion. This might explain his oddly scientific attempt to explain the existence of right-wing women: “Without doubt many women alive today, to some degree, have been bred to patriarchy just as cows have been bred to have unnaturally large udders. Some of these women can sometimes be stressed to find they have no real inclination to live up to the roles their more feminist sisters have exhorted them to.” Bradford offers no consolation to these “artificially selected” women as he thinks the decline of the “patriarchy” is an inevitable fact of economic development. Nor does Bradford have much to offer white working-class men. He concludes that “Inside America today is a ‘loser nation’ of ‘loser males’” and that, “an inexorable reality would seem to dictate that American ‘loser males’ adapt to being incorporated into a global labour market and to become, in relations between the sexes, more like the men of Scandinavia. “But being brought up in a frontier culture of male aggressive dominance they are likely to strongly resist such an adaptation and they are understandably not keen to put themselves on the same economic level as the factory fodder in China’s overcrowded and over-polluted cities.” What a dismal outlook! Is it any wonder the right is ascendant when left-wingers like Bradford compare the family (literally) to slavery, tell family-oriented women they have been bred like cows to patriarchy and give working-class American men no choice but to accept economic redundancy and a subjection to Scandinavian style feminism. It is leftists themselves who have alienated white men en masse. Why should white men identify with a politics which casts them as the villains, and their own historic culture as oppressive and illegitimate. It’s perfectly rational for men to begin to move rightward. Of course, my own hope is that some men will realise that right-wing liberalism, as represented by the Republicans, will no more preserve the values they believe in than the left, and that support for a genuine traditionalist conservatism will grow. END
I often wonder what the Bradfords of this world can possibly say in reply to being flayed in this way and left on the pavement for inspection by curious right-wing passers-by. I suppose they think of some way to cover their nakedness, even if it is only by way of the customary hateful attack. But that, really, is where I give up on them … the near-religious mystery of what keeps liberals going in the face of any amount of evidence, any amount of damage to their position is an extraordinary and depressing phenomenon. Let me say here and now that I can discern more than one category of liberal. One is the Lindsay-ite pathologiser who, if pressed (and sometimes not very hard) will readily confess to hating his own class or countrymen or race. He needs to heal himself and liberalism is his chosen method. But pathology bears its own damnation. When we encounter it we can cease the discussion forthwith. Move along, please. Nothing to see here. Likewise, it’s not worth discussing political right and wrong with those members of non-Euro minorities for whom liberalism is but a means by which to disadvantage the host population. As a power strategy, evolutionary or otherwise, liberalism is actually a Conservative choice for these people. When we encounter them we should unfailingly name them and expose their motivation. But argument? Not a profitable endeavour. But there is a third broad group of liberals who, by their apparent sanity, intelligence and capability, seem worthy of attention. But I fear they are not. These people are not driven by some inner force like madness or race. They are so detached from their people and from their own true natures that they actually believe in the god of political freedom for itself. To be precise, they believe that the human personality is so shallow-rooted it draws from nothing more than culture – from what is acquired. As a result, they also conclude that personality is infinitely malleable, both by agenda-setting liberals like themselves and, once he is “enlightened” as to his reason and the limits and oppressions of his unchosen self, by the individual himself. These liberals actually believe that this malleability can be exercised without the subject going cuckoo-clock loopy. But then, they hate the sins of Western Man so very, very much they will willingly turn a blind eye to any and all of the wreckage they cause. Baby, freedom is the thing, after all. Freedom and equality. Now, when I was young I spent a good deal of time pondering freedom. Young people do that, along with oversleeping, bringing up in inconvenient places and boasting about sexual fumblings that never happened or, if they did, weren’t nearly as riveting as advertised. I remember it all too clearly, unfortunately. But I remember too that I was never so spiritually poverty-stricken or so stupid as to think that freedom was purely a question of politics. In retrospect, it didn’t really take me very long to work out that life was quite a deep business. From birth onwards, what we acquire from all the manifold and subtle impressions, the incomprehensible, unstoppable “noise” of life which, like it or not, impacts upon our passive psyche, is a symphony of such astounding, dissonant richness it surpasses all meaningful comment. Most certainly, it surpasses all attempts at crude manipulation, too. And that is only the half of it. For this great wealth of personality-forming data accretes upon a product of Nature, a too-too-solid expression of evolved genetic reality. Liberals can’t abide it, can’t abide evolution or genetics or reality. But we know them all and they are true. Given this wondrously creative and unfathomable complexity, what is one to make of the liberal notion of freedom? Or, indeed, any secular notion of freedom? In what sense are we not free? Well, I don’t want to go too far down that road in this comment. MR is a political blog and, politically, one can say with absolute certainty that freedom is a limited commodity because Man himself is limited. He is not a god - far from it. However, I will say that there is one telling limitation upon Man’s freedom. But it is not what liberals suppose it to be. It isn’t the unconscious accretion of personality-forming data that enslaves Man. And he will not, therefore, be freed by frigging around with it, whatever those self-serving, 1930’s Jewish Kulturkampf types decided. No, it is the quality of Man’s ordinary, waking state of consciousness that contains him in an imperfect state of being. About this liberalism rightly has nothing to say. It is not remotely competent to speak of it. Consciousness, and not personality, is the door to a greater humanity, since only consciousness of self may transcend the unconscious self. But greater humanity, if it exists at all, lies outside the sphere of politics. Essentially liberalism, because it has cast-off freedom from its Conservative moorings, attempts to perfect through the coarse medium of politics that which cannot be perfected - personality - in pursuit of that which never has and never will exist - a heavenly political utopia. Liberalism is not just politics. It is a neo-religious faith. But we aren’t de-programmers. We can’t save the Bradfords from themselves. Our job is, in whatever small and scarcely significant way we can, to save Western Man from the Bradfords. Comments:2
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 14 May 2005 23:26 | # I found Mark’s quotes of this Bradford peon astounding. I think Mark dealt with him too gently. That an obviously pathological character like Bradford is allowed to publish is just flabbergasting. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 14 May 2005 23:35 | # Svi, I don’t know that he is pathological. My point is that there may be a class of liberals who are detached from the certainties which you or I apprehend, and simply filled with a pathological political faith. 4
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 14 May 2005 23:43 | # Svi, I don’t know that he is pathological. My point is that there may be a class of liberals who are detached from the certainties which you or I apprehend, and simply filled with a pathological political faith. I know he’s pathological, but then again I’m not really recognizing your distinction between him and his faith. If you mean to say that he’d probably be okay in a different world, one with a healthy milieu, then I largely agree that’s likely. 5
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 15 May 2005 01:37 | # I’m not going to waste two seconds analysing the guy. He’s the worst kind of enemy of normalness—just as was Robert Lindsay. That’s all I need to know. There is no way to analyze these people. Either they were born missing part of their brains—part of their minds, or their minds were tragically twisted into some monstrous shape during their childhood development or something. Are we going to reach them? No. Make new men of them? I don’t see how. Besides, we have other work to do right now. 6
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 May 2005 08:10 | # Svi, Well put. Bradford-types, sane or not, are empty vessels that will be filled with whatever is available. They are establishment thinkers, no different to any aparatchik in Stalin’s Russia that swallowed the theoretical need to eliminate whole classes of ubers thereby to free the unters. Advanced liberalism - or Kulturkampf or cultural marxism, call it what you will - substitutes mass manipulation of the uber personality for mass murder. It claims thereby to be able to lead ubers and unters to freedom. What I’m saying is that personality manipulation does not lead to “freedom” for anybody. It leads to a manipulated personality. What might lead to some momentary sense of freedom - a qualitative change to individual consciousness - has absolutely nothing to do with liberalism or with politics. Otherwise, the freedom which politics can advance is a very limited quality, since it can be taken advantage of only by those lucky enough to live in a healthy, Conservative society. 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 May 2005 08:21 | # Fred, I tend to agree that Bradford-types, even if sane, cannot be turned. But because they are essentially establishment thinkers they will be influenced by whatever Great Idea obtains generally. At the moment that idea is pathological. So the Bradfords’ intellectual output is pathological. 8
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 15 May 2005 08:23 | # Well these pundits can yack it up all they want but the data says the reason Bush was elected was affordable family formation creates loyal conservatives. There is no better correlation between votes for Bush vs Kerry than affordable family formation. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Get used to it and stop the guess work. 9
Posted by Pericles on Sun, 15 May 2005 10:44 | # James, I read with interest, the article by Steve Sailer that you flagged. Here in the U.K. there is also disquiet about the immigration issue, because the mindset of of the majority of the immigrants is not to pay taxes and support both the British economy and the British way of life. We have many East European people here who are nice as individuals, but perhaps there are too many of them. It’s like the Lake District. A beautiful area that is spoiled by too many tourists, yet without limitations on numbers, those who want to see the beauty are the ones who despoil it. After WW2, Poles who had fought for Britain stayed on and many of their descendents live and prosper in Ealing. They have fitted in, but that is because they wanted to be with us in mind and deed. This seems to be less the idea now for the latest waves of economic imigrants who wish to bite the hand that feeds them. I am thinking of the robber baron types from former communist dominated countries who are preying on the British. Personally, I think we in have enough homegrown dysgenic criminals, without the need to import more. But, how can we tell who is going to be nice and who is nasty?
Pericles 10
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 15 May 2005 20:10 | # James B., I briefly considered sending precisely that to that Bradford twit. You’d think these folks would inform themselves a bit since they make their livings up on a soapbox. 11
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 15 May 2005 20:13 | # Pericles, Multiculturalism and Political Correctness are now in full bloom and western man is obviously no longer capable of demanding assimilation as he could in the past, or even of presenting a confident enough culture to make assimilation attractive. 12
Posted by Kubilai on Sun, 15 May 2005 20:49 | # Multiculturalism and Political Correctness are now in full bloom and western man is obviously no longer capable of demanding assimilation as he could in the past, or even of presenting a confident enough culture to make assimilation attractive. - Svigor Talk about a vicious, downward spiraling cycle! 13
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 15 May 2005 21:02 | # Kubilai: Yeah. What’s really striking is how many Americans actually think of our current immivasion in terms of past waves of immigration, and shrug it all off with a “we assimilated once, we’ll do so again.” Does it really take a genius to notice that an immigrant is not an immigrant is not an immigrant (sorry folks, Bantus and Frenchmen aren’t equivalent), or that Americans today aren’t the least bit comparable to Americans then in this context? Sometimes I despair of more than 1% of the population having an idea that wasn’t fed to it. 14
Posted by Kubilai on Sun, 15 May 2005 21:37 | # Svig, This is our plight, unfortunately. We have a proportion of Whites who WANT what is happening to happen even faster. We have a proportion of Whites who are indifferent to what is happening because it doesn’t really affect them in any tangible way yet. We have a proportion that are oblivious to what is truly happening because, as you said, the truth hasn’t been fed them. And we have a large proportion of non-Whites that are only too eager to come right the %$&* in and “help us”. LOL So people like us on MR are in the very very small minority. Take for example the case of Lou Dobbs on CNN harping on and on about illegal immigration and sending our jobs overseas for over a year now. People have only recently given it a second thought. Ben Tillman stated it perfectly on another log entry when he said… We are a society whose “brain” has been (largely) taken over by a parasite. The actions that must be taken to remedy the situation are severe; they are tantamount to the destruction of the “brain” (though it is understood that a reconstruction would follow). Obviously, an organism’s destruction of its brain is extraordinarily costly—so costly that the only thing as costly as becoming a “pod person” is a false determination that such a transformation has occurred. Most people literally cannot contemplate that such a transformation may have occurred. 15
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 15 May 2005 22:31 | # This is our plight, unfortunately. We have a proportion of Whites who WANT what is happening to happen even faster. Sort of; many of them would change their tune if they were made to truly understand a few facts. I can’t in good conscience describe a person as wanting something when he wants it and thinks it’s importantly different from its actuality; people who think pistols shoot joy bullets don’t want to commit suicide when they put them to their temples. Subtracting these dupes leaves us with malicious race-destroyers, but I think this is a very small number of people. LOL So people like us on MR are in the very very small minority. This is true, but think how fast many would snap into line if the wind began blowing in the other direction. so costly that the only thing as costly as becoming a “pod person” is a false determination that such a transformation has occurred. Most people literally cannot contemplate that such a transformation may have occurred. That’s a very astute observation. I remember well the chills I got when I realized that the media didn’t have my best interests at heart, that in fact my best interests are entirely inconsequential to them - not in an intellectual sense (I’d internalized that intellectually before adulthood), but in a gut sense. It really is hard to fully emotionally internalize the fact that the media is essentially hostile to us. It’s inconceivable, really, that the media has no sense of a shared “us.” 16
Posted by Kubilai on Sun, 15 May 2005 23:07 | # Sort of; many of them would change their tune if they were made to truly understand a few facts. I can’t in good conscience describe a person as wanting something when he wants it and thinks it’s importantly different from its actuality; people who think pistols shoot joy bullets don’t want to commit suicide when they put them to their temples. - Svig I’m not so sure about that, Svig. Take for example our young “conservative, race-realist”, Birch Barlow from GnXp fame on these boards. He is someone who apparently is in the know about what is happening yet despite us trying to open his mind, he is still yammering on about ONLY wanting “several hundred thousand high skilled” immigrants per year, no less, because he sees nothing wrong with that. If he can’t make the final leap from his egalitarian complacency, I cannot see how others can. I do realize what you are saying, however. I also do realize that there is a spectrum of people, instead of simply yes or no, who will or will not change their views when confronted with cold hard TRUTHS. I can honestly say that I hope you are 100% correct in your assertions, though I am not entirely convinced. The brainwashing runs deep. 17
Posted by Matra on Mon, 16 May 2005 00:22 | # This weekend the main story on Fox News seems to be the case of the illegal alien murderer of a white Denver policeman. In fairness to Fox News they’ve emphasised the need to catch this Mexican before he makes it across the border as the government in Mexico City will not extradite any of its citizens if they face not just the death penalty, but even life imprisonment. As someone living just across the border in Canada who’s closely observed the US media for many years it seems to me that coverage of the immigrant invasion has improved greatly in the last year or so. Yes, most of the national press are still collaborators, but both Fox and CNN’s Lou Dobbs have changed things. Last week even Chris Matthews was sounding angry about illegals. I’ve been in contact with US supporters of immigration control since about 1993 and as I’ve said before on these boards I feel as if something positive is finally about to happen on the immigration invasion front. I suppose the big question now is will the majority anti-immigrant sentiment lead to something substantial happening or will the “movement” be co-opted and eventually neutered by forces who convince the masses something is being done while things continue as usual? This may be a crucial moment in US history. It takes time for an idea to start from a small group of activists or intellectuals to become a part of mainstream thinking and eventually something people are willing to base their vote on. Unlike leftist ideas immigration control won’t have the support of the architects of popular culture to sustain it indefinitely. If nothing substantial is done this time it may take many more years or at least another 9/11 to rebuild the enthusiasm for immigration control. By then it may be too late given the changing demographics, especially in the southwest. BTW as I write this 60 Minutes has a show on Mexican prison gangs. Hey, maybe there’s hope they will one day have a segment on racial prison rape! I won’t hold my breath. 18
Posted by John S Bolton on Mon, 16 May 2005 01:37 | # An allmerit immigration policy is not a threat to EGI’s, when the numbers are quite low and the differential of IQ is on the order of dozens of points. If this is not believed, then let us hear the condemnation of Salter for saying that such immigration would, and has, increased the carrying capacity of the land of zimbabwe. Also, why would commenters not suppose that an allmerit policy in immigration, when what is meant is international merit in international language standardized testing, which is to say also English language verbal IQ, would not be mainly European? Why reject universal principles, such as that aggression by immigrants on the net taxpayer by foreigners, allows for the strictest penalties to be imposed? Contra Barlow &c, I say that racial partition of America is that point the objective of public policy, if we go by evidence and not by taking official propaganda at face value. If one combines racial quotas and the immigration of eligibles, racial and ethnic conflict is made to increase every year, without respite. thus, the objective of those who can see this and not ask for a reversal of the policies, must be civil war and partition on that basis. 19
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 16 May 2005 04:33 | # It’s most certainly a threat by way of example. Saying “zero immigrants, now or ever, period, now bugger off for all time” sends a message. The citizens can take pride in their nationalist policy, and outsiders get a clear message as to whether they’re welcome or not. Maladaptive altruists don’t have to feel bad about the “unfairness” of the selection process (yes, of course they’ll find something else to whine about). Xenophobes don’t have anyone to blame anything on, or to persecute, or commit “hate” crimes against. There is no foreign lobby, or fifth column for foreign espionage. Of course, I’m much more amenable to the idea of limited immigration for selected applicants of relatively high genetic kinship, so I’m sort of arguing against myself here. 20
Posted by Pericles on Mon, 16 May 2005 08:55 | # On the basis that knowledge is power, I read the GnXp site to learn about and understand life’s little mysteries. Today, I was introduced to Theodore Dalrymple. http://bowman.typepad.com/cubowman/2005/02/theodore_dalrym.html and http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/may05/dalrymple.htm He writes about the British white underclass and if he is only half right, then it seems that dysgenic behaviour has taken root to such an extent that the U.K. no longer has the capacity to function as a reasonable society. In which case, decent, intelligent British subjects will be looking to emigrate to foreign climes. Here’s a thought!! As the latest countries to join the EU, empty of their populations who move west as economic migrants, so we as disenfranchised members of this Septre’d Isle could move east with our technology and live in magnificent splendour in the beautiful countryside of Poland, Hungary, Slovakia etc. Wizzair will fly us there for £3-20 each way. Pericles Post a comment:
Next entry: Comfort before honour
|
|
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) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:11. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 21:35. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 20:51. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 19:49. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 18:47. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 23:29. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:01. (View) Manc commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:52. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 18:17. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:02. (View) Manc commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Wed, 27 Nov 2024 17:12. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 25 Nov 2024 02:05. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sun, 24 Nov 2024 19:32. (View) |
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 14 May 2005 23:01 | #
“Liberalism is not just politics. It is a neo-religious faith. But we aren’t de-programmers. We can’t save the Bradfords from themselves. Our job is, in whatever small and scarcely significant way we can, to save Western Man from the Bradfords.” (—from the log entry)
This is the thing, of course—we’ve absolutely no chance of making individuals like Bradford see reality. They are a completely lost cause. Whatever got screwed up in their brains is irreparable: till their dying day they will see things wrongly and not just wrongly but catastrophically so, seismically so, epochally so. They are beyond help but we and all we hold dear aren’t beyond saving and we must see to that task because everything obviously depends on our success in that. These Bradfords are out there stalking us and all we love most, in order to spew their venom, in order to inflict harm. We must defend ourselves from the living nightmare, the worse-than-hell existence these types would ruthlessly impose on us at the first opportunity that presented itself, sparing themselves and their friends, of course, the New Nomenklatura, who need no re-education because ... well, because they are the overlords, don’t you see—it’s that simple. That’s just the way it was meant to be. Besides, it’s what they’ve always dreamt of, getting us in their cross-hairs, getting us within their grasp, lording it over us to “re-make” us and severely punish those of us who can’t be re-made. They certainly aren’t going to pass up any opportunity to do exactly that: to realize their lifelong dream.
We must save ourselves, save our own lives, from this deadliest kind of enemy and never lose sight of the dreadful fact that Bradford and his friends lurk out there waiting to pounce, waiting for their chance to get us by the throat.
This man Bradford is an especially egregious example of the kind of disgusting, sick personality we’re up against. I admire Mark’s sang-froid in being able, in effect, to cooly debate this specimen. Just reading his brazen, literally nauseating, actually incredible (incredible that any human being could think things like that) pronouncements as they were excerpted, some of them, in Mark’s essay made my skin crawl; made me feel as if I needed to crawl out of my skin. Never would I have been able to get through Bradford’s original essay, his original piece of unholy uncleanness—no way in God’s creation would I have been able to read the man’s original article—and then reply so calmly and in such measured, reasoned tones as Mark has done. For that alone Mark likely deserves the Nobel Prize in Literature or something—surely a sainthood. Something. Thank you, Mark, for that service rendered. You are a strong man.