The BBC’s favourite race-denier of the 1990s says negrification is utopia

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 07 October 2008 07:56.

A decade or so ago, one of the frequent frustrations of my life as a school-run parent was catching Steve Jones, a geneticist who has specialised in Bosnian snails, on Radio 4’s Today programme. The BBC of the 90s had a particularly strong penchant for race denial, and here was an “expert” geneticist who talked the mitochondrial talk, and gave them what they wanted to hear.

It wasn’t what I, sitting in my car, wanted to hear. But it was to bury the “racism” and “oppression” of people like me - white people, in other words - that the whole charade was played out. And pretty much played out it is, now, in the era of micro-array analysis. But that doesn’t stop Steve Jones from splurging his same old nonsense at us, when he’s given the chance. Today the Telegraph has done just that.

Jones’s headline argument is that there are not enough older fathers to drive the evolutionary process in European Man - older fathers being the key producers of genetic mutation in their spermatazoa. Somewhere along the line the confused Telegraph sub-eds have widened the claim to a complete halting of the process in Mankind, which is obviously silly because Jones says:-

Today’s men start late, but stop early. In Cameroon, almost half the fathers are over 50, in Pakistan about a fifth, and in France only about one in twenty.

So evolution marches on everywhere else but among us, it seems. But towards the end of the article it becomes plain that when Jones says “evolution” in respect to Cameroonians and Pakistanis he actually means “European race-replacement”:-

As Darwin himself realised, evolution’s third ingredient is isolation. Humans are 10,000 times more common than any other mammal of their size, and without modern technology the world’s population would be half a million - about that of Glasgow.

People are dense, and on the move. No man (or woman) is an island nowadays, for the world is becoming a single genetic continent. History has always been made in bed, but the beds are getting closer together.

Once, we stayed close to where we were born and populations could build their own identity. Now, we no longer have to marry the girl or boy next door but can hop onto a plane and find a mate from miles away.

How far was your birthplace from that of your partner and how far apart were your mother and father, and your grandmother and grandfather on each side, born? In almost every case the distance has increased and continues to do so (my wife and I first saw the light 3,000 miles apart, my mother and father ten; and, as my students say, it shows).

Everywhere, the biological frontiers are getting leakier. A grand averaging is slowing evolution’s power. One British marriage in fifty is between partners from different ethnic groups and many more cohabit.

Afro-Caribbean males are half as likely again to marry a white female than are black women to find a white husband, while among Chinese those preferences are reversed. Britain is among the most sexually open nations in the world.

People choose mates almost as much by level of education as by skin colour. Other countries are going the same way and Homo sapiens will soon be a lot more uniform than it was.

Health, birth control and the healing power of lust all conspire to tell us that, at least in the developed world, and at least for the time being, evolution is over. So, if you are worried about what Utopia is going to be like, cheer up - you are living in it now.

All this describes the European genocide quite well. It is only when, at the very end, Jones comes to the values to be ascribed to it that we realise what being a devoted Labour Party supporter does to the scientific mind.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by Bill on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:59 | #

see Moslem migration a tool of the elites - Bill on Sunday, October 5, 2008 at 05:43 AM

.......“This state of resigned acceptance of its fate has been engineered over many years, was it intentional or is it just a natural conclusion brought about by the unnatural way we live? (High - tech civilisation) Take your pick.

Remember it is early days, I repeat, this situation is unique in the history of man, it’s not all over till the obese lady sings.”

End.

It is my contention that the days of jetting tens of millions of third worlders around the globe is coming to an end. (as is the way we live) Is that the fat lady getting ready over there? It’s the conditions remaining that will be the problem.

Remember, we are all crystal ball gazing here, no-one has the monopoly of vision as to where all this is leading - not even the architects themselves. We’re flying by the seat of our pants.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:17 | #

In the last line of the TimesOnLine version, Prof. Jones comes out and declares explicitly, “the future is brown”:

Decreasing randomness is another contributing factor. “Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be, according to the rules of the animal kingdom, and we have agriculture to thank for that. Without farming, the world population would probably have reached half a million by now – about the size of the population of Glasgow.

“Small populations which are isolated can evolve at random as genes are accidentally lost. World-wide, all populations are becoming connected and the opportunity for random change is dwindling. History is made in bed, but nowadays the beds are getting closer together. We are mixing into a global mass, and the future is brown.”

(Hat tip)

Individuals who hype “the brown future of white people” do it not because they have solid evidence for it but because they very much want it. Brown is their personal preference the way Oriental is Birch’s. They want it and the men who edit the media organs that give them publicity want it, otherwise they wouldn’t give them publicity. Notice they select those to whom they’ll give publicity with great care. Not just anybody is eligible. Only those with certain views are eligible. They’d never give Peter Brimelow publicity, for example, not so much as a dotted i or crossed t. Not in a million years. Peter Brimelow doesn’ hold the required views, you see.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:37 | #

Let’s have a show of hands: who here thinks China, Japan, or Israel will ever become “brown” countries (“brown” in the sense of mulatto or some mixed-race equivalent, not Jews with sun tans)? Anyone?

Didn’t think so.

Posted by Red Mercury on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:59 | #

This is racist, Race Replacement nonsense. Basically he’s saying Utopia is a country like Brazil. Sure, there are some nice white areas in southern Brazil, but the country as a whole is about as far away from the idea of Utopia as one can get.

Jones is a tool of the globalist, anti-white, Race Replacement power elites. He twists his words in so many ways, but in the end his prescriptions amount to a call for ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Where are the White Men who are going to stand up to this nutcase?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:23 | #

At least some Portuguese have their heads screwed on frontwards: check out this party’s election campaign poster. GREAT! I LOVE IT! (That red shape in the poster is a map of Portugal, for those of you who’ve had government-school educations the past couple of decades or so.)

(In the poster they put different labels on the brown and black sheep, for camouflage — they’re not labeled as non-white immigrants. But viewers immediately get the correct message, surely.)

Posted by the Narrator.. on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:28 | #

...that, at least in the developed world, and at least for the time being, evolution is over. So, if you are worried about what Utopia is going to be like, cheer up - you are living in it now.

Kinda shoots his own point in the foot with that, as most people consider the current state of The West to be somewhat hellish.
As Red Mercury pointed out, he is essentially calling the Third World paradise.
The places with majority racially mixed brown people are the places millions are currently fleeing like rats from a sinking ship.
But such is the state of liberal logic.

At any rate if events were really going the way the article describes them, then the promoters of such a world view would not need to keep badgering us with such blatant “it’s all over Whitey, so don’t resist” propaganda….

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:14 | #

All excellent points by The Narrator.

Posted by torgrim on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:19 | #

This sort of liberal utopian thinking first smacked me in the face around 1990.

You see I was having dinner at some friends home and the conversation came around to “world peace”....
My hosts were advancing the theory that, the world would be a utopian peaceful place if only the races were mixed and we would all be just a little….“shorter, darker, with black curly hair”.....well, I about choked, and came back with a rebutal with, you mean like the Jews in Israel and the Palastinians?? Racial cousins…well the dinner conversation ended and with forced pleasantnesses, we said good night.

End of friendship.

This truly, for most liberals I have met, is a religion, based on faith, not logic.

Posted by torgrim on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:13 | #

Should be…, Palestinian

Posted by Gudmund on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:44 | #

Jones and people like him are vapid, egregious shills and that’s that.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:55 | #

History has always been made in bed, but the beds are getting closer together.

Not according to Migration Watch UK:

England’s racial divide ‘growing’

White Britons are increasingly moving from London boroughs with large ethnic minority populations, a report from an immigration-monitoring group says.

“As international immigration into London and the South East has increased, so the outward migration of Londoners to other regions of the UK has accelerated,” said Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch.

The BBC created a programme to address the phenomena;

Escape to the Country

Do you live in a hectic city, yet long for the tranquillity of the countryside? In the new series of Escape to the Country, Jules Hudson and Alistair Appleton help people make their getaways to their dream rural homes.

Some are even moving as far as Okotoks, Alberta, (Cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey) although most are heading for OZ.

Posted by An eerily sublime thought on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:03 | #

Humans are 10,000 times more common than any other mammal of their size, and without modern technology the world’s population would be half a million - about that of Glasgow.

Or…Iceland.

Hmm….

Posted by Fr. John on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:27 | #

“Once, we stayed close to where we were born and populations could build their own identity. Now, we no longer have to marry the girl or boy next door but can hop onto a plane and find a mate from miles away.”

And there’s your first mistake, mate.

To rephrase a saying, think locally, act locally.
As more and more of the world abandons the traditions of the fathers, arranged marriages between like tribesmen of your race look better and better.

Abolish Public Education, homeschool, and keep your children unspotted from the world.
It takes a lot of hard work, but my posterity (and Christendom’s!) is worth it.

Posted by the Narrator.. on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:22 | #

Thanks Fred.

Having thought about it for a bit it seems Mr. Jones argument is contrary to the facts he assumes. If a slightly higher percentage of Whites are marrying outside of their race today, then that in and of itself represents a normal evolutionary step forward as these genetic weak links are removing themselves (and their genes) from the common White gene pool.

In other words, a culling of the herd is taking place.

If that doesn’t represent an evolutionary step forward for Whites then nothing does.

As Mr. Jones says,

“A grand averaging is slowing evolution’s power. One British marriage in fifty is between partners from different ethnic groups and many more cohabit.”

I wonder if those who pushed Mr. Jones theory into the news so loudly realize what he is saying there.
Whether he intended it or not, it comes across as, ‘miscegenation retards the evolutionary process’.

And I would also add that many of those ” One in fifty” British marriages to different ethnic groups are to different White ethnic groups.

The liberal media talks about race mixing as if it were a recent phenomena. To read the papers you’d think the mulatto and mestizo emerged from cocoons only a few years back.

I think it just really grates on the liberal mind to know that, for all intents and purposes, the world is divided into two basic camps; White and non-White.
The (momentary) increase in numbers for the one side, does nothing what-so-ever to alter the continuing existence of those two camps.
And it never will…

Posted by IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:32 | #

You all on this website might want to take a look at or write about the following blog post and study entitled “Whites’ reluctance to talk about race”—http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/10/whites-reluctance-to-talk-about-race.html

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 09:47 | #

Good point Narrator.

Even if every one of those 1 in 50 marriages were white/non-white, thats still less than it ‘should’ be given the UK’s demographics.

Posted by John on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:39 | #

Someone need to take that suited, coiffed perfumed arsehole, put him on the Southeastern towards Gillingham and kick his arse off at Wollwich Arsenal, Rolex watch and all.

Posted by Sleep on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:35 | #

better picture of the Portuguese black-sheep ad campaign:

http://www.pnr.pt/

Yes, theyre pretty up front about what they’re saying. However, they have a long, long way to go in terms of actually getting votes: Portugal is not Austria. Portugal is the country that really started the whole “let’s mix with the peoples of the world” trend in South America, and even today a lot of Portuguese are proud of how much darker-skinned they are than other Europeans because of their greater amount of African ancestry. According to Wikipedia the PNR got 0.2% of the vote in the last election.

They’re about as relevant as Ralph Nader.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:45 | #

Dienekes disagrees with Prof. Steve Jones.
______

Speaking of Dienekes, a Negro (or something damn close to it) signing as “Aff” argues (if you can call it that) with him on race. Here are the Greek’s replies, posted before he gets tired of the moron and starts simply ignoring him:
______

Affe: Could it be that the ” ‘race doesn’t exist’ meme” exists because race doesn’t exist?

Dienekes: Race exists as a concept; that is the only way in which any concept can exist, if it has been formulated by a mind. [Scroob note: What the Greek is saying here is it exists as a category, which is exactly right. The ones trying do deny its existence may do so but only if they deny the existence of every other category in the universe, since they’re all conceived based on the same general rules of categorization: if there are no races, there are no trees, cars, fish, planets, atoms, people, clouds, books, televisions, dogs, cats, birds, snakes, rocks, lakes, rivers, oceans, stars, lions, tigers, elephants, apples, watermelons, pears, roses, flowers, coins, ballpoint pens, dollar bills, chairs, beds, cabbages, garden hoses, words, languages, men, women, etc.— you get the picture. Go ahead and deny race: you won’t be able to stop there, though. You’ll have to deny a whole lot of other categories as well. All of them, in fact, because the exact same rules of category-recognition-and-denial apply to all of them.] What the “race doesn’t exist” crowd mean is that this concept has no biological relevance, or that it is of limited relevance. The second claim is true, but then again, no one claimed that race explains the totality of human biology. [Scroob note: that’s right — it apparently doesn’t explain about 20% if IQ, though it explains the remaining 80% perfectly.] The first claim — that it has no biological relevance — is patently false. In short, the “race doesn’t exist” phrase is a meaningless expression that persists as a marker of moral superiority in societies afraid to discuss human biology openly. [Scroob note: it’s not “societies” that are afraid to discuss human biology openly, of course, only certain segments of (certain) societies, segments that happen to control the media. And they’re not exactly “afraid” — it’s more that they simply don’t want the political and social changes which would result from the government stopping chronically and systematically lying to the people on these matters.]

Aff: How about that “it’s a flawed concept that doesn’t accurately describe human variation” instead of “it has no biological relevance”?

Dienekes: The statement that it “doesn’t accurately describe human variation” is flawed. The totality of human variation can’t be described by race — and no one has ever claimed it can be. What race does describe is a part of human variation. Knowing a person’s race tells you something about his genotype and phenotype: for a single trait and a single individual, often not much; for the combination of many traits or many individuals, a lot.

Aff: Today, we know a lot about human genetic variation and all evidence points to clinal variation through a series of bottlenecks.

Dienekes: All the evidence points to mankind being distinguished by many genetically distinguishable races and subraces. “Bottlenecks” are a way in which existing human variation may have come about. Accepting that bottlenecks happened in human evolution is not in any way inconsistent with the idea that mankind is divided into races.

Aff: Nothing from the past (even educational models) is so holy we can’t discard it in view of new data and even newer models that reflect that data.

Dienekes: The newer data is perfectly consistent with the five races of traditional physical anthropology, and is indeed beginning to reveal unsuspected depth of substructure within the major races. [Scroob note: that “depth of substructure” wasn’t “unsuspected” by everyone. Lots of people not only suspected it, they considered it blindingly obvious. What’s happening now is they’re being vindicated.]

Posted by Frank McGuckin on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:51 | #

Just curious. Is Professor Jones married? Does he have any White Children? Also, is professor Jones a Hebe?

Posted by XBZ on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 19:18 | #

Jones, in the picture on his UCL homepage, looks sort of guilty and also like he’s starting to look over his shoulder.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/biology/academic-staff/jones/jones.htm

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 19:26 | #

Absolutely right, XBZ, that’s exactly what he looks like, LOL! He can’t manage to hide his guilty conscience for the photo! That’s quite funny!

Posted by Frank McGuckin on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:08 | #

Is he a Hebe or not? What tribe was he born into?

Posted by XBZ on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:39 | #

Whats a matta Frank?

Frightened to type in “Steve Jones” jew into google for fear of the internet thought police paying you a visit?

From what I can gather though, he’s a presbyterian shabbos goy.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:18 | #

This happened at the same time as there is a growing wave of crime and violence targeting the natives. The response of the authorities to rising levels of racist violence targeting the natives has been to increase crackdowns on “racism” – by the white natives. In 2005 the Norwegian parliament – with the support of 85% of MPs – passed a new Discrimination Act, prepared by then Minister of Integration from the Conservative Party, Erna Solberg, who had earlier called for the establishment of a sharia council in Norway.

A spokesman for the right-wing Progress Party, Per Sandberg, feared that the law would jeopardize the rights of law-abiding citizens. Reverse burden of proof is combined with liability to pay compensation, which means that innocent persons risk having to pay huge sums for things they didn’t do. If an immigrant claims that a native has somehow discriminated against him or made a discriminatory remark, the native person has to mount proof of his own innocence.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3576

Just a couple of small things to note, small but which stand out glaringly (to me, at any rate), in the above new passage from Fjordman:

1) Notice (as referred to in the excerpt) how when demographic incompatibles are responsible for waves of violent crime against whites, the overlords react by increasingly harsh crackdowns on — guess who? — on whites no less … for their racism! So, here the whites are, getting viciously pommeled, and here comes the government to punish them, whites, for their “racism.”

It’s extremely racist to get beaten up by Negroes, you see. Bet you didn’t know that: if you’re white and get savagely beaten up by the Negroes it makes you a racist.

Now, the overlords know of course that makes no sense. Nevertheless that is always their reaction to whites being targeted by non-whites for violence and crime: the targeted whites are, in the eyes of government, racist and need more brainwashing — or worse, depending on how racist they’re being: for the whites most savagely beaten up, who are, therefore, the most racist, punishments meted out can include prison sentences; prison homosexual rape by AIDs carriers; death by shooting, stabbing, bludgeoning whether by the arresting police, or while in police custody, or by non-white prison inmates; etc. All that for being “racist.”

My take on why the overlords do this even though it makes no sense whatsoever is to deter whites from defending themselves, pure and simple, so that race-replacement can continue smoothly on course with nothing slowing the government timetable. The men running race-replacement are extremely serious men who want to get race-replacement done, with no delays, no detours, nothing whatsoever gumming up the works. So anything that might get whites mad at the process has to be followed by a harsh pre-emptive reaction heading off expressions of white anger and forewarning whites in no uncertain terms against any future attempts to protest.

2) Notice how the party with “Conservative” in its name favors stuff which is, according to the standard terminology, extreme radical leftist, while the one with “Progress” in its name (think of the political term “progressives,” always identified with the radical left) is said to be “right-wing.” This highlights, of course, a topic much discussed here at MR, namely the way in which “Conservatives” of today are extreme radical leftists; and it also highlights my own personal preference for calling our side Progressives rather than Conservatives. (Actually my preference would be for calling our side “Normals.”) I may start simply using that term to refer to our side and not worry if it confuses people. With time, confusion may stop. The other side never awaits anyone’s “permission” before using words in novel ways. They just go ahead and change the English language however it suits them, whenver they feel like it and make no apologies for it, none. We should be more like them in that respect — except, when we do it we’re not “changing the language” but changing it back, back to the way it was before they tampered with it. When we’re done it’ll feel like we’ve drained a fever swamp, gotten rid of the mosquitos and the malaria.

Posted by Othelma_Jr on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 10:51 | #

1) Notice (as referred to in the excerpt) how when demographic incompatibles are responsible for waves of violent crime against whites, the overlords react by increasingly harsh crackdowns on — guess who? — on whites no less … for their racism!

The late Sam Francis (pbuh) coined the term “anarcho-tyranny” to describe this Mr. Scrooby!

This whole ‘we are in utopia now’ bit that Jones is pursuing makes no sense. By his logic the (mixed race) mestizos of Mexico should have reached Nirvana CENTURIES ago... but what is actually occuring are the mestizos are fleeing North and trying to live with the Whites.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 11 Oct 2008 03:37 | #

Peter Frost illustrates one way in which Prof. Steve Jones is wrong in claiming human evolution has stopped:

The last point may help us understand a chicken-and-egg question. If reading and writing are associated with specific genetic predispositions, how did people initially manage to read and write? (see previous posts: Decoding ASPM: Part I, Part II, Part III) [Refer to original text to click on embedded links]

The answer is that these predispositions are not necessary for reading and writing. But they do help. Specifically, they help the brain process written characters faster. In this way, natural selection has genetically reinforced an ability that started as a purely cultural innovation.

This may be a recurring pattern in human evolution. Humans initially took on new tasks, like reading and writing, by pushing the envelope of mental plasticity. Then, once these tasks had become established and sufficiently widespread, natural selection favored those individuals who were genetically predisposed to do them better.

The term is ‘gene-culture co-evolution’ and it’s still a novel concept. Until recently, anthropologists thought that human cultural evolution had simply taken over from human genetic evolution, making the latter unnecessary and limiting it to superficial ‘skin-deep’ changes. But recent findings now paint a different picture. Genetic evolution has actually accelerated in our species over the past 40,000 years, and even more over the past 10,000-15,000. The advent of agriculture saw the rate increase a 100-fold. In all, natural selection has changed at least 7% of the genome during the existence of Homo sapiens. (Hawks et al., 2007; see previous post). And this is a minimal estimate that excludes much variation that may or may not be due to selection. The real figure could be higher. Much higher.

Hawks also disputes Prof. Jones on the claim that “human evoution has stopped” but I don’t at all like Hawks’ comments in response to Jones’ evocation of “our brown future.” Hawks is usually OK, sometimes even good, but sometimes he’s bad: all’s not quite right with the guy. There’s something legitimate and important in all this which he’s either not seeing or not admitting.

Here Dienekes posts an abstract dealing with the emerging field of “gene/chromosomal structure,” a field with potential to shed light on additional ways in which races differ innately, ways extending beyond the simple nucleotide sequence of the gene.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 11 Oct 2008 03:44 | #

The racially important phenomenon of locally co-adapted gene complexes also, of course, involves innate differences between races which extend beyond the simple nucleotide sequence of the gene.

Posted by silver on Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:37 | #

My take on why the overlords do this even though it makes no sense whatsoever
is to deter whites from defending themselves, pure and simple, so that race-replacement can continue smoothly on course with nothing slowing the government timetable. The men running race-replacement are extremely serious men who want to get race-replacement done, with no delays, no detours, nothing whatsoever gumming up the works. So anything that might get whites mad at the process has to be followed by a harsh pre-emptive reaction heading off expressions of white anger and forewarning whites in no uncertain terms against any future attempts to protest.

Yes, you keep saying that. To hear you tell it, nothing in history ever happened but that it was planned in the most exquisite detail, every little step of it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:55 | #

Do you have another explanation for it, Silver? I’m open to suggestions.

Let’s take just this MSM phenomenon of never reporting Negro violent crime against whites while not only reporting the reverse but playing it up out of all proportion? Could that be accidental, do you suppose? Or is it conscious suppression of one kind of news and conscious exaggeration of another kind? If it is conscious, what could be its motivation other than what I put in my last comment (given all that we know is going on)?

There are no exceptions to the phenomenon I refer to here — it is done with perfect one-hundred percent consistency: the Jewish-controlled MSM in the U.S. consistently refuse to report Negro-on-white violent crime while the much rarer white-on-Negro variety is not only reported, it’s blown up out of all proportion.

Sometimes it’s simply outright invented, as seen with the Duke University defendants: a white-on-Negro crime blown up out of all proportion which never even happened by was a creation of pure Jewish-controlled MSM hype/Jewish-paranoia-and-Euro-hatred.

If that sort of thing had happened just a few times we might wonder if it was accidental. That it happens each and every time without exception rules accident out: it’s deliberate. What’s deliberate has a conscious motivation. What’s the motivation behind it, Silver?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:02 | #

Silver,

Serious question ... actually, two serious questions:-

Do you accept that in some part of the non-Jewish elites there is knowledge of race-replacement as an inevitable consequence of globalist policy?

Do you accept that with knowledge must come either resistance or approval and, since we are talking here about approval, “decision” in the Schmittian sense (meaning that by their approval, the elites impart social and moral validity, or respectability, to the consequences of their policies):-

According to decisionism, it is not the content of the decision, but rather the fact that it is a decision made by the proper authority, or by using a correct method, which determines its validity.

It seems to me that consequentiality must dictate intent at some point. There is a slippery slope that leads us from the evidential approval for European race-replacement to acceptance of its planning. After all, we are talking about highly intelligent men here, not low-brows who blunder, whoops, into a European apocalypse.

Posted by Gudmund on Sat, 11 Oct 2008 21:06 | #

@ Scrooby and Guessedworker,

Here are my questions. Particularly on the Eurasian side of our multiculti waste-dump empire, do the elites see that they’re playing with fire? When EUtopia turns into the Caliphate of EUrabistan, what then? Do they really see themselves staying at the top of the totem pole amidst a tide of angry Moslems? It is short-sightedness, hubris, or what?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:23 | #

Gudmund,

It’s the Strategy of Tension. Perpetual, distracting social tension justifies the centralisation of power, which involves the centralisation of wealth - where it is then accessible.

Power + wealth. Marxism + neoliberalism.

In this elite foodchain the only predator ... the force that can destroy everything ... is nationalism. And I don’t mean nativism such as that championed by the “nationalist” parties. I mean the of corpus of ideas and thought which stands outside of, and in opposition to, liberalism.

Posted by Gudmund on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:35 | #

@ Guessedworker,

That’s a fair point. But somewhere down the road, the elites will have to content with Islamic nationalism, which is a thought process opposed to liberalism too. So what do they do then? Import people from yet another place? How can they keep control of events so there isn’t a violent blowback?

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:43 | #

“How can they keep control of events so there isn’t a violent blowback?” - Gudmund

The elites believe, as Dr. Steven Steinlight suggests, that Muslims can be transformed into deracinated, consumerist, automatons. The ever more frequent admissions that their multi-cult is a failure is the beginning of the end of their denial.

Posted by Gudmund on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 04:14 | #

“The elites believe, as Dr. Steven Steinlight suggests, that Muslims can be transformed into deracinated, consumerist, automatons.”

Well, there are those Muslims, I guess. But another question arises from this point: faced with a coming energy crisis, how will the elites maintain a full-tilt consumer society?

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 04:25 | #

“But another question arises from this point: faced with a coming energy crisis, how will the elites maintain a full-tilt consumer society?”

As the elites grasp on power becomes more tenuous the more drastic measures they will adopt. A more vigorous milking of the Iraqi cow would be in order with young European-Americans deployed appropriately.

Posted by Gudmund on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 05:00 | #

“A more vigorous milking of the Iraqi cow would be in order with young European-Americans deployed appropriately.”

Not unlikely. I don’t know the demography of the US Armed Forces per se, but my guess is that the old PC canard of “the Armed Forces are mostly black and latino” is an out-and-out vile lie. Most grunts and officers I met in college were “working-class” whites. At any rate, the Iraqi cow is quite a prize for their ambitions. Just like India was the Jewel in the British Empire’s Crown. Now if only those damned troublesome Arabs and Kurds would just settle down like nice little serfs…then again, as others have pointed out these elites thrive on chaos amidst their subjects.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 05:03 | #

Apparently nationalism is antithetical to Islam.

“He who calls for `Asabiyyah, (nationalism/tribalism) is as if he bit his father’s genitals”

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 05:56 | #

In this elite foodchain the only predator ... the force that can destroy everything ... is nationalism. And I don’t mean nativism such as that championed by the “nationalist” parties. I mean the of corpus of ideas and thought which stands outside of, and in opposition to, liberalism.

The problem here is that nationalism arose from liberalism or the Enlightenment. Romantic nationalism,

arose in reaction to dynastic or imperial hegemony, which assessed the legitimacy of the state from the “top down”, emanating from a monarch or other authority, which justified its existence.

In other words the Leviathan;

...the purpose of the commonwealth is peace, and the sovereign has the right to do whatever he thinks necessary for the preserving of peace and security and prevention of discord, therefore the sovereign may judge what opinions and doctrines are averse; who shall be allowed to speak to multitudes; and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they are published.

“A homeland (rel. country of origin and native land) is the concept of the territory (cultural geography) to which an ethnic group holds a long history and a deep cultural association with —the country in which a particular national identity began.”

In order to justify an ethnic groups hold on this sacred homeland it must develop a sense of primacy or superiority.

Posted by Armor on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:02 | #

do the elites see that they’re playing with fire? When EUtopia turns into the Caliphate of EUrabistan, what then? Do they really see themselves staying at the top of the totem pole amidst a tide of angry Moslems? It is short-sightedness, hubris, or what?

Their philosophy seems to be “After me, the deluge”. They know the future is bleak, but they do not have the courage to speak against immigration. They hope they won’t be hurt personally by the disaster.

Our elites are not elites at all :

1. If they consciously want to hurt us, they cannot be considered as our elites by any means

2. If they realize the absurdity of allowing race-replacement but are afraid to speak against immigration, it means they are not ruling the country.

3. If they sincerely believe, like Bush, that race-replacement is a good thing for the whites, it means they are fools who cannot think for themselves.

Most politicians probably belong to case #2. I think part of the problem is the dilution of responsibility due to the fact that the far-left journalists, activists and academics who demand more immigration are not part of government and do not need to show restraint. They do not believe in their own posturing. It is a game where the most unprincipled person wins. I think they do not care if immigration actually takes place, the important thing is to take position for unlimited immigration. In doing so, they create a situation where the politicians will find it difficult to say stop.

Posted by silver on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:11 | #

Do you have another explanation for it, Silver? I’m open to suggestions.

Yes: they don’t care.

They see caring as immoral, just as they see caring about someone’s sexual orientation as “immoral.”

If that sort of thing had happened just a few times we might wonder if it was accidental. That it happens each and every time without exception rules accident out: it’s deliberate. What’s deliberate has a conscious motivation. What’s the motivation behind it, Silver?

(1) Peace. They’re just following the liberal script. White racism causes black crime and black poverty. Everything would be fine if whites just ceased being so damn racist.

(2) Compassion. Racial inequality is hard. It’s easy for you, it’s easy for WNs, for WNs who’ve been writing about it and nothing else for fifteen years. But it’s hard for most everybody else.

(3) Fear. Obviously Big Jew & Co is aware of WN, aware that WN is correct in its essentials. But WN being correct would completely overturn the existing order, which would be a highly undesirable turn of events, so it needs to be suppressed.

Do you accept that in some part of the non-Jewish elites there is knowledge of race-replacement as an inevitable consequence of globalist policy?

Yes, of course, though I suspect it’s not as widespread as some of you might believe.

Do you accept that with knowledge must come either resistance or approval and, since we are talking here about approval, “decision” in the Schmittian sense (meaning that by their approval, the elites impart social and moral validity, or respectability, to the consequences of their policies):

It seems to me that consequentiality must dictate intent at some point. There is a slippery slope that leads us from the evidential approval for European race-replacement to acceptance of its planning. After all, we are talking about highly intelligent men here, not low-brows who blunder, whoops, into a European apocalypse.

That’s three questions then.

To the first part of the second, yes, one must approve or resist.

To the last part, no. For two reasons.

Firstly, there is barely anything in the way of planning necessary. Immigration + time are the only requirements for race-replacement.

Secondly, since there was resistance, why was no mention ever made of race-replacement back when opposition to immigration (any immigration, for any reason) was respectable? Why didn’t Enoch ever mention it? Or going back even further, why wasn’t race-replacement ever advanced as an argument for resettling the freed slaves?

Because no one thought it’d ever happen. Yes, we are talking about intelligent men, but clearly not intelligent enough. All the evidence, imo, suggests that these intelligent men very much did, whoops, blunder into a European apocalypse. That shouldn’t surprise. History is replete with the blunders of intelligent men—in some sense, history is nothing but the blunders of intelligent men.

Race-replacement is hard to grasp. It’s not intuitive. Men a darn sight more intelligent than half of us have failed to see it coming, and once it’s underway objecting to it is, let’s say, tricky. Take Derbyshire. While it’s too much to ask any man to regret his progeny, one wonders whether in the dark recesses of his mind there isn’t a certain glumness; after all, he’s well aware of racial inequality and the havoc it’s causing in his ancestral homeland but he’s forced to restrict his criticism to “mass immigration.” One of the Martins that used to post here (Kelly or Hutchinson), isn’t he married to a Bulgarian? It’s a similar dynamic in play: he’ll object to race but never press too hard. Or even take Fred Scrooby, a former commie sympathiser: it’s not hard to imagine it could have been him that, horror of horrors, miscegenated in the days before he “got” race. Or even you, Mr. English Nationalist, in the days before you “got” race, it’s not entirely impossible is it. Would that then be “evidence” that you wished to race-replace all of England?

Seeing that race-replacement is corrected is infinitely more important than playing the blame game. The fix you’re in (well, that we’re all in, to varying degrees) has the mark of colossal blunder written all over it. The way out has got to be something other than fingering puppet masters.

Posted by Dave Johns on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:16 | #

“Immigration + time are the only requirements for race-replacement.”

Dr Salter, silver, Michael Rienzi, and all white-preservationists are in one accord on that note as evidenced by this:-

... For the sake of simplicity, Dr. Salter assumes immigrants have no effect on carrying capacity, and that they have the same birthrates as natives — very conservative assumptions. Dr. Salter then asks: What is the genetic effect of displacing 10,000 natives by 10,000 immigrants? What happens to the frequencies of ethnic-specific genes? Given that members of an ethny want their nation to be composed of their people, and to leave behind, after they die, as many copies of their ethnic-specific genes in the population as possible, how much genetic damage does immigration cause?

It is important to note that Dr. Salter treats the arrival of immigrants, not as a simple addition to the population, but as a one-for-one displacement of natives. This is methodologically correct, because when a nation reaches its carrying capacity, it is the presence of immigrants and their descendents that makes it impossible for natives to increase their numbers. What may not appear to be one-for-one displacement today will, in retrospect, be seen to be precisely that.

Dr. Salter expresses the loss of genetic ethnic interest in units he calls “child-equivalents.” In other words, Dr. Salter is asking: For any given member of the native population, what is the number of lost children that would equal the loss of his ethnic genetic interests caused by the arrival of a certain number of aliens? Note that we are not talking about actual children, but gene equivalents put into the form of the genetic parent-child relationship. Put differently, the arrival of immigrants from other ethnies will change the genetic character of a population, and make it more alien to every member of the native ethny. The amount of genetic change, from the point of view of any given member of the native ethny, can be calculated as the equivalent of the number of children not born to that person.

An example will make this clearer. Dr. Salter begins by considering the English as the native population, and examines the effects of the immigration of 10,000 Danes, an ethny that is genetically very close to the English. Replacing 10,000 Englishmen with 10,000 Danes changes the genetic characteristics of the population so much that the resulting “post-displacement” population differs from the undisturbed population by the equivalent of an Englishman (or woman) “not having had” 167 children! Again, we are not talking about actual children, but of the genetic equivalent.

Let us consider other examples. What if the immigrants were Bantus — a population very genetically distant from the English — rather than Danes? Here the genetic cost to any given Englishman of the arrival of 10,000 Bantus is the equivalent of 10,854 lost children! Clearly, the extent of the genetic transformation of a population depends on the genetic distance between the native and immigrant populations…

http://www.amren.com/ar/2003/02/#cover

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:31 | #

Silver,

I “got” race in the sense of an otherness and of not belonging at age four or five. Saw it driving through the back roads east of Brixton that my Dad used to take from central London to our home on the southern edge of the city. In warm, dry weather the negroes used to “hang-out” in the evenings on the steps of the houses - a truly formative memory that has never left me.

By the time I was in my late teens and early twenties I could “see” the materialism of Jews and knew this was something racial. But I couldn’t see their political activism since, at that time of my life, I had rejected politics for the totally irresponsible joys of being a petrol-head.

As for miscegenation, I met my future wife when I was 18 and she 15. We are still together. So no, not much possibility of running off with an East Asian girl. Outside of those who worked in Chinese restaurants I don’t think I ever saw one until the mid-late 1970s.

So I’m probably not typical enough to serve for your argument.

As for the argument itself, are you rejecting the idea that authority dictates morality?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:34 | #

Desmond,

The general assumption is certainly that nationalism as an idea arose with Rousseau, and was embodied in the French Revolution as an expression of a unifying, non-monarchical popular fealty. Romantic, Herderesque nationalism was, I think, a response to the more radical, left-wing direction that the liberal revolution took. In that respect, you are right that liberalism and nationalism have a symbiotic relationship.

However, in England the seeds of a characteristically non-continental nationalism arose well over a century earlier with Edmund Spenser and his patron, Sir Philip Sidney. They did not embody the spirit of rebellion against the Crown, or a culture of critique of any other aspect of national life. On the contrary, the reification of an English arcadia claimed the virgin queen, and built on her myth. Unlike liberalism, it did not draw from the teleology of faith. The latter’s passions were fully occupied with the consequences of fissure with Rome, and would remain so through till the Restoration and the Acts of Union. Perhaps that’s why we had no 1848, and social division in England was kept largely at bay until the second-half of the nineteenth century.

So, I do not see nationalism as springing from a single continental rootstock. My own interest in it is devoid of teleological characteristics, and baulks at your remark that:-

In order to justify an ethnic group’s hold on this sacred homeland it must develop a sense of primacy or superiority.

It may not be enough to give rein to self-consciousness, and to consciousness of grievance. But supremacism is not required. What would it contribute? We are not seeking to construct another mirror image of Judaism.

Posted by silver on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:09 | #

So I’m probably not typical enough to serve for your argument.

The argument was only that men can blunder and create unintended effects and that “today” is an example of it.

As for the argument itself, are you rejecting the idea that authority dictates morality?

Look, I’m no philosopher at all; the only time I ever got down and dirty with the philosophers was on the Infidels boards some years ago and it’s not an experience I’m keen to repeat. All I know about morality is that I managed to go from a good Christian boy to irreverent libertine and, two shattered illusions later (God is real and race doesn’t matter), am now stuck somewhere in between, trying to solve the great question of the day—race—having rejected the temptation to take the easy way out, which is to allow it to resolve itself. That’s the extent of my involvement. But when I keep reading theories about devious puppet masters executing plans 2000 years in the making I (a) sigh, wondering where events fit, and (b) get annoyed, because the burden of proving the case steers people down a futile path (and makes animals of them).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:02 | #

”@ Scrooby and Guessedworker, [...] Particularly on the Eurasian side of our multiculti waste-dump empire, do the elites see that they’re playing with fire?” (—Gudmund)

The Jewish and communist position is they want whites replaced with mulattoes or whatever else non-white they can scrounge up in time to get it done before whites mount a defense, and they’ll gladly deal with the consequences when the time comes, and no, they do not think the consequences will be a net negative but very much a net positive.

As is of course needless to add, the Jews among this group do not want Israelis or Jews in general replaced with mulattoes, and the whites doing it are too braindead to notice the Jewish hypocrisy or care, they just feel so cool because to be in favor of something which is 1) so counterintuitive (genociding your own race, man!) and 2) liked by all the hot girls means 3) you’ve GOT to be viewed by others as intellectual, moral, and just “better” because you’ve GOT to have some damn good but hard to figure out reason, and 4) you’re going to get laid by a better class of chick than the ones who are willing to shag the rednecks, nazoids, and bikers — you’ll now start getting the ones who’ve at least had a bath in the last two days and keep their bras and nix laundered.

“Whites” for Jews is code for Euros, whom they consider a separate race from themselves, a race they hate and want exterminated the way you want cockroaches in your kitchen exterminated. Jewish “writer” Susan Sontag’s statement that “Whites are the cancer of history” meant (meant for her and for the Jews who hyped it non-stop for the next quarter-century) Euros and certainly was not intended to include Jews. Jewish “professor” Noël Ignatiev’s “white privilege” means Euro privilege (which is of course non-existent apart from whatever advantage may inhere in their genes which Ignatiev will not admit exists because he’s Jewish), not Jewish privilege. When Jewish “professor” Ignatiev calls for the elimination of whites and calls them a social construct, he’s not calling for the elimination of Jews or calling Jews a social construct, only Euros. When Jewish professor Alon Ziv calls on whites to procreate with Negroes he’s not calling on Jews to do it, only Euros. When he insists he’s calling on both he’s lying because he knows Jews won’t and Euros will: if you tell both knowing only one will listen, you’re lying when you pretend you’ve “called on both”: you know damn well you’ve called on only one, and you know which one. It’s all aimed at Euros, whom Jews see as a race alien to themselves and wish to do away with, and since open, explicit calls for genocide of Euros with bullets or what-have-you won’t fly, they have to find round-about ways of calling for Euros to be genocided.

This is why Bill Kristol talks about wanting to “crush Serb skulls” (his exact words) — not “defeat the Serbs,” not “kill the Serbs,” but “crush Serb skulls.” Defeating them or killing them isn’t enough, you see — the Jews have to “crush their skulls.” What’s speaking through Kristol’s mouth there is the most intense visceral hatred.

What did the Serbs do to call forth hatred of this intensity? They wanted their Serb homeland to be just for them, not a place for admixture of aliens — same thing Jews want, in other words (Jews want the Jewish homeland to be just for Jews), same thing Kristol wants for Jews, but Euros can’t have it since they’re sub-human cattle in the eyes of Jews like Kristol and if they try to have it, it calls forth intense visceral hatred that makes Jews like Kristol start fantasizing about not just killing them but specifically “crushing their skulls.”

If Euros have pride and naturally do the things, think the thoughts, act the ways that come with pride, it excites the Jews’ jealousy since Euros aren’t, well, Jews. You see, in the Jews’ eyes the only Euros who are allowed to have pride are ... well, there aren’t any, come to think of it. No Euros are. Only Jews are. If you’re Euro, you’re cattle. Pride isn’t for you. That’s how the Jews see it. So you can’t have it, and if you try, they’re going to crush your skull.

People who think like that aren’t going to worry too much about what they’ll do once there are only mulattoes where whites once stood. First they’ll rejoice. The rest they’ll handle. The Jews have never had any problem handling Negroes, mulattoes, or Arabs. They’ve only ever had a problem handling Euros. With Euros finally out of the way the coast will be clear for them to do whatever they want — unless China gets in the way, but they’ll deal with that when the time comes. That’s how the ones pushing race-replacement see it.

“When EUtopia turns into the Caliphate of EUrabistan, what then? Do they really see themselves staying at the top of the totem pole amidst a tide of angry Moslems? It is short-sightedness, hubris, or what?”

See above.

Posted by Gudmund on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:13 | #

@ F Scr

Thanks. Good points. But it is an arrogant position for them to hold, as events can easily get out of hand for anybody in power. Especially since many Euros are waking up and there is starting to be a nationalist backlash in many places. IMHO, even if 5-10% of us survive unmixed, that will be enough for us to resist the bastards. Hell, if those Diasporic minorities could manipulate their way through 2000 years to their advantage, a minority of whites can goddamn well do the same.

Posted by Gudmund on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:32 | #

The other problem with race-replacement, AT LEAST IN THE USA, is that white people seem to be the only people with desire to live in the rural areas. Other races cluster in cities, definitely hispanos in rural SW but in general the rural lands are the haven of the whites. Majority of farmers are white, other races don’t have the motivation to learn these skills, and if they are involved it is for grunt work. If it comes to bad times, the white elite can melt away into the vast rural areas of the US and continue resistance. Eventually the comically mismanaged ZOG must fail of its own accord.

Posted by Dave Johns on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:30 | #

“IMHO, even if 5-10% of us survive unmixed, that will be enough for us to resist the bastards.”

As it stands now, whites comprise only about 12% of the earth’s total population. That percentage is shrinking fast. Within 5 generations—if the current demographic trend continues—whites as a percentage will shrink to less than 1% of the earth’s population; therefore, we will be faced with almost certain extinction.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/is-european-man-doomed-to-extinction/193485370

And here is how white liberals’ celebrate their own genocide:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q9nTfXh1eQ

Posted by Armor on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:36 | #

It is important to note that Dr. Salter treats the arrival of immigrants, not as a simple addition to the population, but as a one-for-one displacement of natives. This is methodologically correct, because when a nation reaches its carrying capacity, it is the presence of immigrants and their descendents that makes it impossible for natives to increase their numbers. What may not appear to be one-for-one displacement today will, in retrospect, be seen to be precisely that.

It is true that inserting third-world immigrants in a white society results in fewer white babies in the near future, but the phrase “one-for-one displacement” makes it sound as if each time a Mexican enters the USA, a white American was asked to live the country!

In fact, even if the result of immigration was simply an overcrowded country, with no corresponding drop in the white birth rate, we would still end up rubbing elbows with more third-world people and fewer of our own people. It still amounts to a kind of replacement, and a loss in our lives.

There are many explanations for the declining white birth rate, although population replacement is obviously the first one. One reason for the decline is also that people now live in big overcrowded cities. Small towns are more congenial places to raise children, but it is harder to get a well paid job there. Without third-world immigration, the population level in western countries would have stabilized once the towns had become less overcrowded. Maybe the USA would have stabilized at 200 million people and Great Britain at 35 million people? I don’t know if my numbers are realistic. But now, what will happen is that white people will keep on waiting until the population drops down to 200 million in the USA and 35 million in GB, while third-world immigrants, who are more comfortable with overcrowding, will keep on reproducing like rabbits until the population reaches 2 billion people in the USA, and 100 million in GB. There is another solution, which is repatriation.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:45 | #

“Yes: they don’t care. They see caring as immoral, just as they see caring about someone’s sexual orientation as ‘immoral.’ “ (—Silver)

But I don’t see how that explains away the Jews’ flat refusal to report Negro-on-white violent crime (or even Negro-on-Negro violent crime which, from what I understand, is the most horrific of all) while not just reporting the extremely rare white-on-Negro violent crime but deliberately either 1) blowing it up out of all proportion and not stopping until Negro riots have been provoked in, on average, eighteen cities, or 2) inventing it outright where it never happened, as at Duke and other instances.

”(1) Peace. They’re just following the liberal script.”

Who wrote that script? The scriptwriters are the ones I’m talking about.

”(2) Compassion. Racial inequality is hard.”

That must be why the Jews pushing racial equality on us don’t push it on themselves: 1) “compassion” (the Jews are very compassionate people, as the Palestinians will tell you), and 2) “racial inequality is hard” (not so hard they don’t effortlessly view every non-Jew as inferior — it’s hard but not that hard).

”(3) Fear. Obviously Big Jew & Co is aware of WN, aware that WN is correct in its essentials. But WN being correct would completely overturn the existing order, which would be a highly undesirable turn of events, so it needs to be suppressed.”

That’s part of it, obviously not the whole, otherwise they’d simply collude in the creation of a new “existing order” not at odds with biology.

“Firstly, there is barely anything in the way of planning necessary.”

Suppression of opposition and potential opposition is methodical and systematic. That comes only through, at the very least, knowing collusion, whether or not explicit plannning takes place with everyone seated around a conference table (which is certainly part of what goes on as well).

“Secondly, since there was resistance, why was no mention ever made of race-replacement back when opposition to immigration (any immigration, for any reason) was respectable? Why didn’t Enoch ever mention it?”

First, there was never “opposition to immigration, any immigration for any reason,” such was never “respectable,” and such does not characterize the view of anyone whether blogger or regular commenter at MR.com, and never has since the site opened. The objection is to excessive incompatible immigration, not “any immigration, for any reason.” No one here takes that position. As for Enoch, the prospect of race-replacement was certainly implicit in his warnings (and maybe explicit for aught I remember — I haven’t gone back to re-read all his words).

“Or going back even further, why wasn’t race-replacement ever advanced as an argument for resettling the freed slaves? Because no one thought it’d ever happen.”

What men thought of then were the race problem in its incipient stages in a Jewless or non-Jew-dominated healthy Euro society. Race-replacement isn’t the next step to consider under those circumstances. The things that were the next steps they did consider, very much so.

“All the evidence, imo, suggests that these intelligent men very much did, whoops, blunder into a European apocalypse.”

The signs that this is being steered are unmistakable — the nature of the incessant propaganda, the pattern of what the MSM report and refuse to report, the pattern of punishments meted out for non-compliance with the agenda, the unwavering direction of lobbying and government influence-peddling all tending absolutely unerringly toward one goal, and so forth. As Silver says, a script is being followed. Who wrote that script?

“That shouldn’t surprise. History is replete with the blunders of intelligent men—in some sense, history is nothing but the blunders of intelligent men.”

Control of the MSM confers power to nip incipient mainstream opposition leadership in the bud — no mainstream opposition leadership, no opposition, unless a violent revolt takes place, but that has an energy of activation high enough that it takes much longer to happen.

“Race-replacement is hard to grasp.”

I agree that may be right, and if so, 1) it is a factor in what’s going on, of course, and 2) it justifies the simplistic race-education-for-the-masses which the Nazis employed in the public schools for educating their population, which seems to so repel everybody today when recalled or cited as part of what was wrong with Nazism. If race and race-replacement are hard to grasp it turns out that sort of simplifying of it for mass education was NOT part of what was wrong with Nazism, but was an excellent idea for accomplishing what was necessary in this world where deliberately fomented racial civil agitation and efforts to see who can get whose race miscegenated have become a form of cold war between groups.

“Take Derbyshire. While it’s too much to ask any man to regret his progeny, one wonders whether in the dark recesses of his mind there isn’t a certain glumness;”

Not at all: complete nonsense. Race-replacement is about numbers, never about individuals. You can join Euros in opposing it no matter what race you, your wife, or your children are.

“Seeing that race-replacement is corrected is infinitely more important than playing the blame game.”

1) Obviously. 2) Apportioning blame in this case isn’t “playing the blame game” so much as refining the aim of those doing the counterattacking. Where the blame game does enter the picture, however, is in making notes for the restoration to come and its trials, which will be fair and, don’t worry, will provide for all normal legal protections of the innocent: if you’re truly innocent of wrongdoing you’ll have nothing whatsoever to fear.

“The fix you’re in (well, that we’re all in, to varying degrees)”

Oh, “we” are? Even if we’re ... Pakistani?

“has the mark of colossal blunder written all over it.”

Has the mark of central planning written all over it.

“The way out has got to be something other than fingering puppet masters.”

There’ll be trials don’t forget, so a knowledge of who the puppeteers are will be helpful. And fingering them now helps the counterattackers to aim: you can’t fight what you can’t see. Also it’s always nice to know why a particular civilizational collapse, an unprecedented-since-time-began genocide of world-historical import, an unspeakably immoral cataclysm of indescribable immensity is happening. When living through something like that it’s always kind of nice to know the causes even as you seem to be going down with it to annihilation.

Posted by silver on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:24 | #

Firstly, for my points 1-3, I thought we were talking about non-jews. Read them in that light.

First, there was never “opposition to immigration, any immigration for any reason,” such was never “respectable,” and such does not characterize the view of anyone whether blogger or regular commenter at MR.com, and never has since the site opened.

I wasn’t referring to the views of bloggers or kooky MR commenters. I was talking about big wigs who did oppose immigration. “Any,” in this case, refers to a program of immigration.

The objection is to excessive incompatible immigration, not “any immigration, for any reason.” No one here takes that position.

The objection to “excessive” incompatible immigration is useless. It’s the very fact of incompatible immigration, in any degree, not excessive amounts of it during a year (or decade). Tiny, teeny-weeny bits, in fact, would, over hundreds of years, most assuredly lead to eventual replacement simply because so few could be brought to believe that such tiny amounts could mean anything or be moved to put a stop to them. You don’t seem to understand this.

The signs that this is being steered are unmistakable — the nature of the incessant propaganda, the pattern of what the MSM report and refuse to report, the pattern of punishments meted out for non-compliance with the agenda, the unwavering direction of lobbying and government influence-peddling all tending absolutely unerringly toward one goal, and so forth. As Silver says, a script is being followed. Who wrote that script?

Well, okay, that’s what you have now, sure. But again, I’m not talking about jews. As I’ve said, once you start along the path of anti-discrimination, certain policies sort of suggest themselves in people’s minds, as well as being put forward concretely by you-know-who. The fact of American history was discrimination, so obviously signs that it’s still rampant (as liberal theory assumes it to be) will be considered important news.

Not at all: complete nonsense. Race-replacement is about numbers, never about individuals.

Everything suggests to me that you simply don’t know humans so it’s not surprising you completely fail to comprehend normal human motivation. In your kooky world, a man could say, “Sure, I had a kid with this nigger, but I’m an individual. But no one else should, absolutely no one else [except “individuals” :D],” without feeling a hypocrite or worrying about personal circumstances, but back on earth things work a little differently.

You can join Euros in opposing it no matter what race you, your wife, or your children are.

That must explain the effort that goes into getting me dismissed as a “paki.”

Oh, “we” are? Even if we’re ... Pakistani?

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2388273,00.html

But in the broader sense of “we,” sure, any place experiencing immigration pressure is in a similar fix. Arab countries receiving trickles of Africans and subcons surely have as much right to genetically define their peoplehood and protect it on those grounds as you do. You probably never thought of this, but that would just highlight what a poor grasp you have of what actually leads to replacement. Try this, it’s not just something which happens before your eyes or in your lifetime.

There’ll be trials don’t forget, so a knowledge of who the puppeteers are will be helpful. And fingering them now helps the counterattackers to aim: you can’t fight what you can’t see. Also it’s always nice to know why a particular civilizational collapse, an unprecedented-since-time-began genocide of world-historical import, an unspeakably immoral cataclysm of indescribable immensity is happening. When living through something like that it’s always kind of nice to know the causes even as you seem to be going down with it to annihilation.

Look, if you don’t care about race, you don’t care. And if you care about peace and it’s racists breaking the peace (or threatening to), it’s them you go after. No conspiracy required. Any analysis which leaves this out is not much of an analysis.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:29 | #

But supremacism is not required. What would it contribute?

It’s evident in your writing. You embrace a supremacist doctrine in your contempt for Germans. English nationalism is superior because “We did not behave ignobly towards our Jews. “

But why did the victorious, un-European British also flee? Our nationalism was no synonym for an absurd racial supremacy. [self-delusion] Racialism, anyway, was entirely separate from nationalism, and given form and tempered by our experience of Empire. [self-delusion] We had no war guilt to bear, beyond the fact that RAF Bomber Command blew the crap out of German cities a propos the designs of “Churchill’s Jew”, Lord Cherwell, and to the chagrin of his nemesis, Solly Zuckermann. [It wasn’t us but the Jews who did it]

You, the German people are beneath us. We feel nothing but contempt for you. We are your moral superior. “We did not behave ignobly towards our Jews. “

The notion that Krauts were the masters of the world was a bad joke, rendered hilarious by all the goose-stepping and uniforms. It was, frankly, not the sort of thing a decent man would do. It still isn’t, is it - if you are honest with yourself.

If there ever was a statement that vindicated the primacy of English nationalism this is it. What contribution indeed?!

“Though you are no longer our enemy,” the officer is saying, “you cannot be our friend. We do not consider you fit to associate with decent people. I have ordered that there shall be zero fraternisation between my men and a single one of you.” Then he pulls himself up to his full height and announces with particular clarity, “Now let there be no doubt … the disease that was Nazism is dead and gone forever. We govern in this zone and we will establish democracy here. You will not be permitted to develop your own political expression. We will rebuild your political life but we will also limit and control it to those ends we, not you, deem appropriate. Germany shall never again be the belligerent. We shall make you peaceful and productive. We shall re-educate you all, adult and child alike. No German will think or feel as he or she thought or felt in the past, not a single one of you.”

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:17 | #

Naughty of you, Desmond. Both quotes one and three are from a particularly complex essay from, I think, 2004. You must have worked hard to find them!

Quote one was my view of British national pride in the years of Empire. It was not, of course, racial in character, but a product of the colonial mind. If you had told an Army officer in the 30s that he, as an Englishman, Scot or Welshman, was racially superior to every Sepoy or Sikh he would have wondered what the flipping heck you were up to. British superiority, yes granted. That he would understand. He lived for and by it every day. But racial nationalism? No, not a chance.

Quote three was an act of pure imagination on my part, since as far as I am aware no complete record of any such speech exists. It does not represent any opinion of mine, save that such speeches must have sounded something like that.

Quote two was an (I believe, accurate) assessment of commonplace English attitudes towards the Nazis in the 30s and 40s. Will Hay and Mr Chips, you know.

Since you are apparently so keen for me to rattle away at German supremacism, I will. Gladly ...

As for the Germans, they debased themselves. Why on earth do you want to embrace the ideology of the Slavic untermenschen, and all the rest, for? Was Dostoyevsky lower than Schiller; Rachmaninov lower than Strauss (Richard, I mean)?

I am constantly surprised at the failure of commenters here - you included - to understand that the dead limb must be cut away so that the body may live. We have need of the German body, Desmond. But a false and insufferable, perfectly dead supremacism we have no need of.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:43 | #

“Take up the White Man’s burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.”

But racial nationalism? No, not a chance.

No need to travel to India to view English racial nationalism. Spenser’s “The View” is redolent with the notion of English primacy vis-a-vis the Irish. Genocide being Spenser’s preferred method.

‘what the soldyer spares the rebel will surelye spoyle’

“Other Englishmen also highlighted Irish savagery. Sir Henry Sidney claimed that ‘matrimony among them is no more regarded in effect than conjunction between unreasonable beasts’ and Moryson describes ‘the wives of Irish lords ... who often drink till ... they void urine in full assemblies of men’. Cavanagh notes that such a focus on the body ‘stresses the connection ... between the Irish and the more base animal qualities of humanity’. At one point in the View the current sophistication of Irish society is equated with that in England, 700 years previously, under Alfred the Great. Concentrating in this way on the underdeveloped nature of Irish civilisation implicitly suggests English superiority and ‘suitability’ to rule.”

As for the Germans, they debased themselves. Why on earth do you want to embrace the ideology of the Slavic untermenschen, and all the rest, for?

Whether one believes in it or not is not the issue. It is the belief in that debasement that keeps your English nationalism afloat. It is your supremacy myth. You cling to it like a blind man clings to his guide dog’s leash. If it is broken, you are lost.

Moreover, it resolves the mystery of the failing of the BNP. For the English to whole-heartedly embrace these policies means stooping to the level of the Krauts, “frankly, not the sort of thing a decent man would do.”

The noble treatment of your Jews will not save you. They already hold you in contempt.

David Wyman, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Massachusetts, has asked: “How could it be that the governments of the two great Western democracies knew that a place existed where 2,000 helpless human beings could be killed every 30 minutes, knew that such killings actually did occur over and over again, and yet did not feel driven to search for some way to wipe such a scourge from the earth?”

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:21 | #

Although usually considered to have been coined by the Nazis themselves, the term “under man” ...was actually first used by American author Lothrop Stoddard in the title of his 1922 pamphlet The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under Man. It was later adopted by the Nazis from that book’s German version Der Kulturumsturz: Die Drohung des Untermenschen (1925).

Stoddard’s book-long diatribe dealt with the recent takeover of power by the Bolsheviks in Russia, arguing that that country was now ruled by the most degenerate people on the Earth. He thought that the combination of the alleged inherent racial inferiority of Russian Slavs, the idiocy of a political creed that appealed to the vilest human instincts (e.g. jealousy towards the more gifted and the more affluent) and the supposed fact that the Communist Party’s rank and file consisted of “born criminals” in the most conventional sense of the word necessitated a completely new term to describe this phenomenon: “the under man.” In this sense, for Stoddard, the October Revolution was the battle cry for an upcoming, unavoidable clash of the civilized nations with the “masses of the east.” If the white race was intent upon winning that confrontation with the “under man,” ...it had to turn away from ill-conceived liberal ideas and adopt drastic changes of policy instead, e.g. by introducing far-ranging eugenics programmes.[3

The Revolt against Civilization: The Menace of the under Man

Book by Lothrop Stoddard; C. Scribner’s Sons, 1922. 278 pgs.

As the English biologist Whetham justly remarks:
“The sense of social responsibility, the growth of moral
consciousness, have reached a certain point among us—
a point that the student of sociology may well call a dan-
ger-point. If, accepting the burden of moulding the des-
tinies of the race, we relieve nature of her office of
discriminating between the fit and the unfit; if we under-
take the protection of the weaker members of the com-
munity; if we assume a corporate responsibility for the
existence of all sorts and conditions of men; then, unless
we are prepared to cast away the labors of our forefathers
and to vanish with the empires of the past, we must ac-
cept the office of deciding who are the fittest to prosper
and to leave offspring, who are the persons whose moral
and intellectual worth make it right that they and their
descendants should be placed in a position of pre-eminence
in our midst, and which are the families on whose up-
bringing the time and money of society are best bestowed.
We must acquiesce in the principle that the man who
has made his five talents into ten shall profit by the skill
and energy he has shown, and that the man who has
repeatedly failed to use his one talent shall have no
further chance of wasting the corporate resources on
himself and his descendants.”

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:56 | #

Desmond,

Spenser’s Desmondism was suppressed in his own lifetime. He was awarded a pension by the court for The Faerie Queen, not for his tactical adumbrations on the prosecution of Elizabeth’s conquest of Ireland. Elizabeth, let it be said, abhorred the excesses of Grey.

So, a product of my impoverished intellect (ie, the untrue elements of National Socialist ideology are no use to us, and must be winnowed away to leave the elements of value), being sometimes expressed in terms disparaging of the fetishism which too often accompanies German-American WN, and which leads the impressionable to the pathetic and deluded estate of costume nazism, is the singular bulwark of my own nativist instincts, without which they would collapse into nothing?

Interesting.

I think it is important to understand that none of us today are genuine nationalists, since we have no coherent global philosophy to which we may adhere. The best we can lay claim to is nativism - an honourable enough estate, to be sure, but not a philosophy. A lot more rigour on this matter would be beneficial. We wave the “nationalist” word around far too freely, me included.

My English nativism is rock solid, of course, and not in any way dependent on despatching the mad, bad dreams of Munich yesterdays. But no nativism is in itself a potential competitor to liberalism. It can intellectually accomodate natural rights and interests. But it is practic ... urging love but not why love. It cannot contain enough of what Man is to threaten the status quo, in the same way that Conservatism has not been able to threaten it during all its years of retreat. Something has to be grafted on top. JWH favours a version of Yockeyism. I’m less inclined to rush that decision, believing it to be, actually, an extraordinarily difficult synthesis to pull off. Kant claimed to have done so once, marrying thought and experience within a single system. But not many agreed with him.

As for any attempt to reify Germans over Slavs, Englishmen over Irishmen, Nordics over Alpines and Mediterreneans, those are screamingly obviously on the “Idealist” or “thought” side of the equation. But they are falsified by the genomic components on the “empirical” or “experience” side. No synthesis can be achieved unless the writ “is it true” runs throughout. And it isn’t true. No intra-European supremacism is true. In its place, although standing on the empirical side, we have race-realism, which is true - difference is true - and not, of course, intra-European. We simply do not need and cannot use the mad and the bad.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:20 | #

“I think it is important to understand that none of us today are genuine nationalists, since we have no coherent global philosophy to which we may adhere. The best we can lay claim to is nativism - an honourable enough estate, to be sure, but not a philosophy. A lot more rigour on this matter would be beneficial.” (—GW)

Please correct me, but wasn’t this exactly Prof. Paul Gottfried’s recent criticism leveled at us over at Taki’s, that we had no philosophy worthy of the name?

But I don’t see why we need a special philosophy to protest our own race-replacement. Isn’t opposition to race-replacement a simple one-step deal, like opposition to, say, getting shot by a burglar? “I don’t want to die.” Well, “I don’t want my race to die either. I like my race. And besides, genocide is wrong.” Something like that, no? Where does the need for a whole new philosophy come in? To me this is all as straightforward, as simple, and as “one-step” as could be.

“But no nativism is in itself a potential competitor to liberalism. It can intellectually accomodate natural rights and interests. But it is practic ... urging love but not why love.”

The point I want to make in response to this is sort of related to my other point: people already don’t want demographic innundation by the racially (or ethnoculturally) unlike. They’re already against it. What’s happening isn’t that their opposition to being race-replaced is weak, or that someone has to teach them why they should love themselves, it’s that their already existing opposition has been overridden by the élites. No one is listening to them. They don’t need further instruction. They need someone to listen to what they already prefer.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:02 | #

Fred,

Mr Gottfried was right, but for the wrong reasons. In the same way that romantic nationalism was finally falsified in the trenches of 1914-18, the palingenesis of National Socialism was falsified in the ruins of Europe in 1945.

There is no getting away from this. It leaves us today looking for a political expression of our nativism, and a corrective to race-replacement, hyper-individualism, self-estrangement, etc, in the same way that Germans looked for a new nationalist form in the light of Versailles, Weimar, inflation, and the rest.

Isn’t opposition to race-replacement a simple one-step deal, like opposition to, say, getting shot by a burglar?

Even though people don’t want demographic innundation, they are powerless to stop it because the polity contains no such thoughts. The whole point of a global philosophy is to sanction thoughts and behaviours. Nationalism would be no different in this respect, except its sanction would be for societally and ethnically healthy thoughts and behaviours.

The elites are the elites of liberalism. They would not be elites under a nationalist polity. Likewise, Jewish ethno-aggression is licenced by liberalism. It would not be so under a nationalist polity.

It all comes down, really, to whether Inevitablism has legs. If it does, I am wrong. If it doesn’t, we are wasting a whole lot of time on it - time we haven’t got. There’s nothing stopping Inevitablism taking hold in people’s minds while we attempt to discover and effect a ground-level change. So let it run. But attend to the ground-level, the macro-scale while you do.

Posted by n/a on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:08 | #

No.

Posted by Armor on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:30 | #

But I don’t see why we need a special philosophy to protest our own race-replacement.

I have seen the same kind of debate among Breton separatists, and I think there has been the same kind of debate in Ireland before the independence of the South. The question was: what is the purpose of sovereignty if we do not have the project to create a different society? Many separatists were interested in socialism, but socialism has now lost its appeal. Another question was: what should be our arguments for the preservation of the Irish and Breton languages? It think there are no good answers. We should rely on our survival instinct. I agree with Fred Scrooby, with his example of the armed burglar.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:19 | #

n/a,

Aryan supremacy over other European Caucasian sub-races is simply not genetically coded. That means it cannot be a component in any solution which recognises scientific truth. So one either constructs a lie or rules out any hint of intra-European supremacism.

Armor,

If the people would only recognise the burglar, according to the Inevitablist script, I’d be content to stop thinking tomorrow. But they don’t, because if not all, certainly too many of their possibilities are contained within the liberal polity. This is true today of Bretons and Britons ... true of everybody. But it is most true of Americans, who so rarely reflect on the radical-liberal nature of Americanism, or question the cost to racialism of genetic distance and the rampant propositionalism that flows from it, or of the universalism of Christianity, or of the Judeo-centrism which inhabits the very idea of modern America.

The political goods we abstract from these things keep us in our racio-spiritual impoverishment. We have no choice but to abstract them. We are men, not gods. But it is within our power - just - to replace liberalism with a polity offering us nourishment.

I’ve been trying to make this point here for four years, and still, to borrow from Freud, the pleasure principle counts for more in most people’s estimation than the reality principle.

Posted by O'Brien on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:47 | #

As for any attempt to reify Germans over Slavs, Englishmen over Irishmen, Nordics over Alpines and Mediterreneans, those are screamingly obviously on the “Idealist” or “thought” side of the equation. But they are falsified by the genomic components on the “empirical” or “experience” side.

No.

n/a is most definitely right here; if there’s one useful thing the race denial crowd has done, it is point out the continuity of geographic variation in humans, as well as animals and plants. Yep, there is ‘racial’ variation in manatees, bears, lizards, sea turtles, pine trees, tomato plants, etc.

As an aside, an interesting set of experiments would be to test the tendency of animals and plants to act more negatively towards individuals of their species who are genetically distant, as opposed to those who are less genetically distant but not immediately related.

Of course, saying ‘race does not exist’ on the basis of continuous variation makes about as much sense as saying that wearing shorts in January in Minneapolis is a good idea, because after all the climatic variation between Miami and Minneapolis is continuous, and there is no definite boundry between ‘warm’ and ‘cold’ climates, and that indeed ‘warm’ and ‘cold’ are sociocultural constructions that not everyone agrees about.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:28 | #

O’Brien,

I am taking it that n/a is Northerner, who is a Nordicist. If that’s right, his interest is likely in arguing that “Nords” or “Aryans” have to be saved from “Meds”.

The cluster/cline issue you raise is something quite separate from n/a’s desire to maintain the genetic distinctiveness of his ethnic group in the Melting Pot. But even in your issue, there is no use for mad, bad herrenrasse stuff. The genetic, cognitive and civilisational differences between European Caucasians and other races can be explicated well enough through race-realism - which, as I said before, stands in the empirical half of the equation.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:59 | #

Aryan supremacy over other European Caucasian sub-races is simply not genetically coded. That means it cannot be a component in any solution which recognises scientific truth. So one either constructs a lie or rules out any hint of intra-European supremacism.

Thus reason informs us that Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment is a constructed lie.

80 percent of all the European significant figures can be enclosed in an area that does notinclude Russia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Spain, Portugal, the Balkans, Poland, Hungary, East and West Prussia, Ireland, Wales, most of Scotland, about a third of France and the lower quarter of Italy.

If it is not genetically encoded, how is it brought to account?

From the founding to 1950…an arc from Portland Maine to the southern tip of New Jersey encompasses the origin of 50%...Even after factoring in the history of American expansion, the primary concentration along the northeastern coast of the United States and the secondary concentration in the beltway stretching to the Mississippi is striking.

And if it is a lie, that there is no supremacist myth that fuels English nationalism, then when will the English be brought to account for their part in the German holocaust.

How three million Germans died after VE Day

MacDonogh argues that the months that followed May 1945 brought no peace to the shattered skeleton of Hitler’s Reich, but suffering even worse than the destruction wrought by the war. After the atrocities that the Nazis had visited on Europe, some degree of justified vengeance by their victims was inevitable, but the appalling bestialities that MacDonogh documents so soberly went far beyond that. The first 200 pages of his brave book are an almost unbearable chronicle of human suffering.

His best estimate is that some three million Germans died unnecessarily after the official end of hostilities. A million soldiers vanished before they could creep back to the holes that had been their homes. The majority of them died in Soviet captivity (of the 90,000 who surrendered at Stalingrad, only 5,000 eventually came home) but, shamingly, many thousands perished as prisoners of the Anglo-Americans. Herded into cages along the Rhine, with no shelter and very little food, they dropped like flies. Others, more fortunate, toiled as slave labour in a score of Allied countries, often for years. Incredibly, some Germans were still being held in Russia as late as 1979.

The two million German civilians who died were largely the old, women and children: victims of disease, cold, hunger, suicide - and mass murder.

Apart from the well-known repeated rape of virtually every girl and woman unlucky enough to be in the Soviet occupation zones, perhaps the most shocking outrage recorded by MacDonogh - for the first time in English - is the slaughter of a quarter of a million Sudeten Germans by their vengeful Czech compatriots. The survivors of this ethnic cleansing, naked and shivering, were pitched across the border, never to return to their homes. Similar scenes were seen across Poland, Silesia and East Prussia as age-old German communities were brutally expunged.

Given that what amounted to a lesser Holocaust was unfolding under their noses, it may be asked why the western Allies did not stop this venting of long-dammed-up rage on the (mainly) innocent. MacDonogh’s answer is that it could all have been even worse. The US Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, favoured turning Germany into a gigantic farm, and there were genocidal Nazi-like schemes afoot to starve, sterilise or deport the population of what was left of the bombed-out cities.

The discovery of the Nazi death camps stoked Allied fury, with General George Patton asking an aide amid the horrors of Buchenwald: ‘Do you still find it hard to hate them?’ But the surviving inmates were soon replaced by German captives - Dachau, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen and even Auschwitz stayed in business after the war, only now with the Germans behind the wire.

Borrowing the question from our learned friend;

“How could it be that the governments of the two great Western democracies knew that a place existed where millions of helpless human beings were being killed and their women and children brutally raped, again and again, and yet did not feel driven to search for some way to wipe such a scourge from the earth?”

How could it be? It happens because of the believe in your own primacy. A belief in the supremacy of your own decency. In light of the evidence, how can it be argued that there is no English supremacy myth. How can it be only the Germans that debased themselves?

We do not consider you fit to associate with decent people. I have ordered that there shall be zero fraternisation between my men and a single one of you.” Then he pulls himself up to his full height and announces with particular clarity, “Now let there be no doubt … the disease that was Nazism is dead and gone forever. We govern in this zone and we will establish democracy here. You will not be permitted to develop your own political expression. We will rebuild your political life but we will also limit and control it to those ends we, not you, deem appropriate. Germany shall never again be the belligerent. We shall make you peaceful and productive. We shall re-educate you all, adult and child alike. No German will think or feel as he or she thought or felt in the past, not a single one of you.”

Posted by silver on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:19 | #

I am taking it that n/a is Northerner, who is a Nordicist. If that’s right, his interest is likely in arguing that “Nords” or “Aryans” have to be saved from “Meds”.

The cluster/cline issue you raise is something quite separate from n/a’s desire to maintain the genetic distinctiveness of his ethnic group in the Melting Pot. But even in your issue, there is no use for mad, bad herrenrasse stuff. The genetic, cognitive and civilisational differences between European Caucasians and other races can be explicated well enough through race-realism - which, as I said before, stands in the empirical half of the equation.

Taken at face value, O’Brien’s “issue” is that a northern/northwestern race exists, not that it’s supreme.

And isn’t that true? Melting pot schmelting pot, isn’t that “the race,” together with its history and shared ways of being that differentiate it from the rest of the continent and provide its members the warmth and sense of belonging (the Identity, as you put it)?

Posted by Dunkirk Spirit on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 03:56 | #

Here’s a little cartoon for the English supremacist and all too typical WASP moralist, Mr. Guessed Worker, to envision. It’s two Englishmen - in fact, the last two on earth - rapidly rowing a little boat away from their island as the vibrant melange of the world that now populates the place screams and hurls things at them. The one says to the other - “We showed that Hitler who was boss.”

Burton used to run to the deserts of Arabia to get away from guys like GW.

Posted by n/a on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:11 | #

Replied to GW here.

@silver: Taken at face value, O’Brien’s “issue” is that a northern/northwestern race exists, not that it’s supreme.

Speaking for myself (“O’Brien” is “birch barlow”), that’s correct. The question of superiority/inferiority is irrelevant. Which doesn’t change the fact that GW is wrong in his inferences about that question, as well.

@GW: I am taking it that n/a is Northerner, who is a Nordicist. If that’s right, his interest is likely in arguing that “Nords” or “Aryans” have to be saved from “Meds”.

I am taking it that GW is Guessedworker, who is a racist. If that’s right, his interest is likely in arguing that “Whites” or “Aryans” have to be saved from “Coloreds”. (Said in nasal, leftist voice.)

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:21 | #

n/a,

Realistically, how great is the threat to northern European EGI from southern Europeans?

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 05:05 | #

Portugal is the country that really started the whole “let’s mix with the peoples of the world” trend in South America

“Countries” aren’t agents. The “Portuguese” presence in Brasil was largely (predominantly?) Jewish, and you can safely wager that Brasilian miscegenation was a Jewish project from the start.

Posted by n/a on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 05:05 | #

In the long term: as great a threat as we allow them to be. At the moment, the threat comes less from southern Euros and more from people like you and GW who prove PC, morally-preening anti-racism frequently lives on among those who should know better.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 05:18 | #

Vague, cryptic, scary. It’s a winner.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 06:03 | #

I think the separate, unique northwestern European ethnicities in Europe are in greater peril of destruction than the general, mixed northwestern European genetic stock you will find in North America. Red-staters, the vast majority of whom are of northwestern European descent, don’t live near southern and eastern Europeans, or non-Europeans for that matter; and have a fertility rate approaching replacement level that should make northwestern European natives envious. In addition, all that living space provides quit a buffer.

At the present time, it seems to me that North America is the locality where northwestern European genetic stock has the greatest likelihood of survival. This Nordicist thing could fracture and discredit any mass-movement we may be able to get going in North America.

If you give a damn about northwestern European EGI, you may want to consider the possibility that the costs of Nordicism out weigh its benefits.

BTW, I do want to protect northwestern European EGI; I am one myself.

Posted by n/a on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 08:11 | #

The last successful racialist mass-movement in the US explicitly aimed to secure the interests of Americans of Northwestern European descent.

GLR- and Stormfront-style Pan-Europeanists, after 40 years, can claim credit for the assassination of GLR and little else in the way of results.

The argument that some form of inconsistent and/or dishonest Pan-Europeanism can/will gain traction if only “Nordicists” keep their mouths shut is baseless and in the same vein as the Amren “we’ll win if we don’t talk about Jews” philosophy; and you’re far from the first to make it.

(1) If the coalition is so fragile that all dissent must be suppressed in order for it to have a chance at success, well, that’s pretty damn fragile. Maybe it’s a hint you should just start with a naturally more stable base.

(2) It’s far from obvious that a greater fraction of Americans would be attracted to generic Pan-Europeanism than to a more narrowly-focused and historically-sound nationalism.

E.g., just saw this from Patrick Cleburne: “One day, perhaps, founding-stock Americans will have agents who look after their particular interests as well”. I somehow doubt the message would be strengthened if he reworded it to be inclusive toward Italians and Albanian refugees.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:52 | #

Desmond,

Murray’s catalogue of scientific and cultural achievements begs a question which has often engaged me, and that is how human advancement proceeds via localised hotspots. Intellectuals attract intellectuals, artists other artists, and scientists, too, though they work geographically separated, share and review one another’s findings. It has always been thus, right from the Sumerian stone-masons and Chinese medecinists to the Portugeuse explorers and German rocket engineers.

An excellent example is the development of the symphonic form in Germany, running from Haydn to Strauss, but especially concentrated in the early romantic period. Today, we have no Beethoven, no Schubert, no Schuman, no Brahms. Something, some shock of the new that was present in Eroica, and energised and attracted genius to itself, is wholly absent now. Perhaps that’s just entropy. Perhaps it’s the lightness of modernity.

Of course, there are dozens of these hotspots. We give them names like the Greek Philosophers, the Dutch Masters, the Scottish Enlightenment, the Italian Rennaisance, the Industrial Revolution, and so on. The groupage tendency reaches down to all levels of accomplishment - one thinks of The Mighty Handful of Russian composers in the second-half of the 19th Century, most of them less than household names today. Obviously, they felt that the possibility of cross-fertilisation was very valuable, and membership of the group would be more productive for them than staying in their garrets to work in isolation. But at its heart there is something generous and social in this phenomenon that goes beyond mere self-interest. Any nationalist should be interested in it.

I have not read Human Accomplishment. I would be interested to know how Murray accounts for this hotspot effect which, to my mind, is civilisationally as significant, and sometimes more, than the arising of towering single geniuses like Shakespeare and Bach.

What I find repugnant in your position is the way you turn this civilisational story to the very dubious service of racial animosity. It may not be noisily expressed, but it is there.

In Europe it is completely meaningless. So much do we want to get away from intra-European rivalries there is a substantial body of nationalist opinion which pressages pan-Europeanism. The joke’s on me here, I guess, because I reject that in favour of maximising national feeling, which is what ordinary people can relate to. Nonetheless, I fall foul of JWH for rejecting pan-Europeanism and Northerner for rejecting racial animosity!

If I was an American or Canadian I would, naturally enough, be seeking to preserve my own genetic interests. For me that means preserving Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Canadians. But I wouldn’t whine away about the Herrenrasse, which has nothing to do with genetic interests, and still less human accomplishment. Traditional Prussian arrogance and post-Versailles resentment, however ...

It is long past time for (the mostly) German-American racialists still in thrall to Arthur de Gobineau and Nazi race theory to realise that animosity is toxic to its host. Northerner’s preference for personal attack exemplifies that toxicity. He needs to realise, because at present he certainly doesn’t, that holding racialist opinions demands a certain moral principle. Most of us understand that very well. It doesn’t make us PeeCee. It makes us free.

Posted by silver on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:46 | #

“Countries” aren’t agents. The “Portuguese” presence in Brasil was largely (predominantly?) Jewish, and you can safely wager that Brasilian miscegenation was a Jewish project from the start.

“Predominatly,” even “largely,” sounds dubious. Nevertheless, whatever its size, it didn’t prevent Brazil embarking on a program to “branquear” (whiten, branco = white) the country in the 1870s with European immigrants.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:15 | #

“it didn’t prevent Brazil embarking on a program to “branquear” (whiten, branco = white) the country in the 1870s with European immigrants.”

The Jews must’ve been temporarily out of control at that point. It sure looks like they’ve made up for it since, though.

Posted by silver on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:16 | #

The Jews must’ve been temporarily out of control at that point. It sure looks like they’ve made up for it since, though.

As a matter of fact, it doesn’t look that way at all. Youtube some Brazilian novelas: unrepresentatively white. How do you account for that?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:05 | #

GW,

Perhaps it’s the lightness of modernity.

Murray suggests a lack of Christian faith and/or nationalist fervor.

We give them names like the Greek Philosophers, the Dutch Masters, the Scottish Enlightenment, the Italian Rennaisance, the Industrial Revolution, and so on.

Examine the geographic origin of theses events. The Scottish Enlightenment, lowland Scotland/Ulster; the Italian Renaissance, N. Italy; the Industrial Revolution; SE England. These events originate with a particular group of people that over and over appear in the lists compiled by Murray and correlate geographically.

I would be interested to know how Murray accounts for this hotspot effect which, to my mind, is civilisationally as significant, and sometimes more, than the arising of towering single geniuses like Shakespeare and Bach.

Interesting perhaps, but insignificant because Murray’s lists are of people that may transcend great periods of time but still share a common geographic origin. Beethoven, Bach and Brahms are three such examples.

What I find repugnant in your position is the way you turn this civilisational story to the very dubious service of racial animosity. It may not be noisily expressed, but it is there.

True, but surely you noticed that the pursuit of racial “truth”, whether inter or intra-European generates a great deal of racial animus.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:57 | #

“True, but surely you noticed that the pursuit of racial “truth”, whether inter or intra-European generates a great deal of racial animus.” - Desmond Jones

I skimmed Murray’s book awhile back and found his thesis to be powerfully presented and plausible.

Lets assume it is true:

Do you want northern Italians to breed with the English?

Do you propose a reification of these “racial “truth[s]”” to the effect of a high, heavy handed supremacist dealing with fellow European ‘inferiors’?

Is not the value of preserving the unique genetic clusterings of European peoples implicit in Salterian nationalism sufficient for preservation?

Just what do you propose be actually done?

Posted by Gudmund on Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:35 | #

I was just reading the original post again and Jones says “without modern technology the world’s population would be half a million - about that of Glasgow.” Does this imbecile even bother checking his non-facts? The population of medieval Paris (roughly c.1300) was 100,000. The population of Western Europe c.1600 was 25,000,000. Did they have “modern technology” then? How about at the height of the Roman Empire, when Rome’s population ALONE was 1,000,000? What is this nitwit’s definition of “modern”? Anything post-neolithic? This guy has got to be the most blatant, brazen, fraudulent shill around.

Posted by dunkirk spirit on Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:50 | #

silver,

they actually did do a pretty good job down there - the first film produced by the government of denmark was about the white slave trade, of which brazil was a prime nexus, and the chosen were fingered by many then, as they are now, as the primary movers. brazil’s just not quite caught up with anglo-saxondom yet, as far as the entertainment aspect goes. it was a pretty stealthy, steady process here in the states. one of my chums wrote his dissertation on it - couched in the rhetoric of the age, of course. also, in that amy chua book “world on fire”, there’s some fascinating material about the changes the “United States”, whatever that is, is instituting as far as race relations go in brazil - apparently they’re not bad enough yet.

gw, i love your strawman “German-American racialist”, gobineau grasped firmly in hand, as if he’s some type of archaic nut. it makes your hypocritical english assessment of the past that much more funny, and that much easier for yourself, and millions, to process. after all, who could look around today’s utopia and claim that the most evil people in the history of the world were in any way right about anything at all?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:10 | #

“Youtube some Brazilian novelas: unrepresentatively white. How do you account for that?”

Do you see the novelas as a tool intended to turn Brazil white, Silver?

(Maybe they just enjoy making their Island-of-Dr.-Moreau racial creations salivate, dream, and feel awestruck — something like the way whites react when shown angels.)

(These people do have a sadistic streak, you know, as well as a triumphalist one, very much so.)

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:50 | #

Just what do you propose be actually done?

Endogamy.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 15 Oct 2008 04:39 | #

“Endogamy.” - Desmond Jones

I’m in favor of outlawing miscegenation between people of European descent and those not. I’m not in favor of legally proscribing sexual relationships between people of European descent.

How to keep people of European descent of different ethnicities from breeding?

Stigmatize it. Popularize through appropriate marketing affordable, accurate genetic tests which will inform people of their own genetic interests and whether or not their prospective partner is consistent with propagating their genetic interests. Sell it as the cool, hip thing to do.

Posted by silver on Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:39 | #

Do you see the novelas as a tool intended to turn Brazil white, Silver?

They suggest that maybe Jews aren’t as obsessed with race-replacement as your feverish imagination (”..are exterminating me”) reckons. There are good reasons to suspect this is so, none of which you can be expected to understand (or attempt to).

(Maybe they just enjoy making their Island-of-Dr.-Moreau racial creations salivate, dream, and feel awestruck — something like the way whites react when shown angels.)

Free Brazilians were well and truly miscegenated by the time the black slaves were freed and the Brazilian court decided to “whiten” the country by inviting European immigrants. Hardly a jewish creation.

(These people do have a sadistic streak, you know, as well as a triumphalist one, very much so.)

You have a malevolant streak, in addition to your ignorant streak, your psychologically shallow streak and your loose cannon streak. Quite a repertoire. In short, you’re the consummate idiot; change the world you will not.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:36 | #

“You have a malevolent streak,” (—Silver)

It comes out when I get mad, like when someone tries to do an Island-of-Dr.-Moreau number on my race. I really, really, really don’t like that.

Posted by Pippy on Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:15 | #

Just what do you propose be actually done?

Endogamy.

Posted by Desmond Jones

Indeed.

This kind of Endogamy?

Thank goodness the Grand Isle is not closer to the dark continent, otherwise who knows what Jones would be crying about, what, with all the eagerness young English girls show in mating with a negro.

My point is Jones is still a whiner as he attempts to prove his biases, and in the case of SE, hatred, with some form of semi-logical factoid. Let’s not forget divisiveness. Mind you, all his quotes and factoids are nearly always without links, thereby making it impossible for all to assess the context they are in. Quite frustrating and disingenuous, that. Captainchaos asks legitimate questions and is rewarded with a poorly thought out grunt.

Regardless, it is tiresome to read Jones’ assertion that NE are the greatest of all times while simultaneous howling they have been beaten unfairly to near extinction by SE and Jews. Oft times, in the same comment thread. Doesn’t the latter preclude the former, Jones? I assert that NE’s contributions had nothing to do with greatness, but simply dumb luck. How else would one explain a group being duped so easily by lower elements? Certainly does throw that greatness theory into disarray. Right Jones?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 16 Oct 2008 06:56 | #

Thank goodness the Grand Isle is not closer to the dark continent, otherwise who knows what Jones would be crying about, what, with all the eagerness young English girls show in mating with a negro.

Possibly someone might translate the Manifesto della razza.

...in Italy in July, 1938 with the publication of the “Manifesto of Fascist Racism.” It declared that Italians were also descendants of the Aryan race. Under racial laws, marriages between Italians and Jews were abolished, Jews were banned from positions in banking, government, and education, and their properties were confiscated. These laws also targeted African races. The two pamphlets above concern themselves with Italians living in the new African colonies, and discuss the problems of raising Italian children in Africa (directed to women specifically) and miscegenation between Italians and Africans.

It appeared to be a problem in Italian colonies in Africa, where the efforts to end miscegenation failed.

Mind you, all his quotes and factoids are nearly always without links, thereby making it impossible for all to assess the context they are in.

The quotes are often from books, so if you wish to know the context read Murray and Stoddard.

Let’s not forget divisiveness.

“The argument that some form of inconsistent and/or dishonest Pan-Europeanism can/will gain traction if only “Nordicists” keep their mouths shut is baseless and in the same vein as the Amren “we’ll win if we don’t talk about Jews” philosophy; and you’re far from the first to make it. ”

Regardless, it is tiresome to read Jones’ assertion…

Don’t read them.

I assert that NE’s contributions had nothing to do with greatness, but simply dumb luck.

Assertion: an unsupported statement or claim

How else would one explain a group being duped so easily by lower elements?

Greed.

Posted by Gudmund on Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:55 | #

Meanwhile, across the pond…

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/080928_rove.htm

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:26 | #

J.S. Mill acknowledging Germanic civilsation supremacy in Europe.

The most united country in Europe, France, is far from being homogeneous: independently of the fragments of foreign nationalities at its remote extremities, it consists, as language and history prove, of two portions, one occupied almost exclusively by a Gallo-Roman population, while in the other the Frankish, Burgundian, and other Teutonic races form a considerable ingredient.

When proper allowance has been made for geographical exigencies, another more purely moral and social consideration offers itself. Experience proves that it is possible for one nationality to merge and be absorbed in another: and when it was originally an inferior and more backward portion of the human race the absorption is greatly to its advantage. Nobody can suppose that it is not more beneficial to a Breton, or a Basque of French Navarre, to be brought into the current of the ideas and feelings of a highly civilised and cultivated people — to be a member of the French nationality, admitted on equal terms to all the privileges of French citizenship, sharing the advantages of French protection, and the dignity and prestige of French power — than to sulk on his own rocks, the half-savage relic of past times, revolving in his own little mental orbit, without participation or interest in the general movement of the world. The same remark applies to the Welshman or the Scottish Highlander as members of the British nation.

Whatever really tends to the admixture of nationalities, and the blending of their attributes and peculiarities in a common union, is a benefit to the human race. Not by extinguishing types, of which, in these cases, sufficient examples are sure to remain, but by softening their extreme forms, and filling up the intervals between them. The united people, like a crossed breed of animals (but in a still greater degree, because the influences in operation are moral as well as physical), inherits the special aptitudes and excellences of all its progenitors, protected by the admixture from being exaggerated into the neighbouring vices. But to render this admixture possible, there must be peculiar conditions. The combinations of circumstances which occur, and which effect the result, are various.

The nationalities brought together under the same government may be about equal in numbers and strength, or they may be very unequal. If unequal, the least numerous of the two may either be the superior in civilisation, or the inferior. Supposing it to be superior, it may either, through that superiority, be able to acquire ascendancy over the other, or it may be overcome by brute strength and reduced to subjection. This last is a sheer mischief to the human race, and one which civilised humanity with one accord should rise in arms to prevent. The absorption of Greece by Macedonia was one of the greatest misfortunes which ever happened to the world: that of any of the principal countries of Europe by Russia would be a similar one.

http://www.constitution.org/jsm/rep_gov.htm

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:19 | #

As Darwin himself realised, evolution’s third ingredient is isolation. Humans are 10,000 times more common than any other mammal of their size, and without modern technology the world’s population would be half a million - about that of Glasgow.

Gudmund took on the second part; I’ll address the first. Seven billion divided by 10,000 equals 700,000. Yet there are about 4,000,000 deer in Texas alone:

http://www.tpwmagazine.com/archive/2004/dec/ed_3/

This guy has got to be the most blatant, brazen, fraudulent shill around.

Definitely.

Posted by Bill on Sat, 15 Nov 2008 07:12 | #

Something I’ve always thought myself.

” In other words, White Guilt is just another ploy in the Great American White Status Struggle. Minorities are merely props for asserting moral superiority over other whites.”

From VFR - 14 November 2008.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments