Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 01:28 | #

I once dated a very pretty Romanian girl (I’d like a million of her sent to the US!) ...

But surely we should be worrying more about the million(S) of nonwhites who have already flooded the UK (not that I support the inter-European dilution of historic ethnies, either)? Or is it believed that a large number of these “Romanians” will actually be Roma?

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 03:47 | #

.......
I have not read the post yet, but I cannot wait to comment on Leon’s comment. Are you for real? You had a pretty Romanian girlfriend, therefore we ought to shrug-off the issue of Britain’s ancient, indigenous people being swamped and subject to mass experiment, more like a program aimed at their permanent transformation?

Yes, I have seen lovely Romanian and Bulgarian women; have had cordial discussion with their men. I respect their nations. Yes, non-Europeans (we are not talking about the gypsy elements of Romania and Bulgaria) are much worse, even more transformative of the native British, but Leon, really, the philo-semitism of your religion shows through in the superficial de-emphasis, non-distinction of your catholic umbrella.

The breaking up of the European native identities, such as English, Scottish, Welsh and more will only leave us more susceptible to non-European transformation.
............

Posted by Andrei on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 07:31 | #

Hello,

I see again and again this confusion between Romanians and Gypsies, who self named themselves Roma / Romany.
God knows why the Gypsies name themselves this way, but they came from India, like all the other Gypsies living in Europe.
And because we, the Romanians, did not burn them on stake like in the Middle Ages in Catholic Western Europe, or did not kill them like Nazi Germany in the 1940’s, we have the “luck” to have many of them now.
So, you guys so concerned about the possible “flood” of really White and Christian Romanians into UK, do you enjoy instead what you already have ? The millions of non-Christians, Blacks and Asians who don’t give a damn on the European values and try to undermine your society with any chance they have ?
That Black guy who hacked to death a policeman in May was British citizen, right ?
OK, enjoy them. I feel pity for the Romanians dumb enough to try to find a job in the U.K.

Posted by Morgoth on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 07:40 | #

As thing starts to unfold I’ve noticed a distinct lack of Politically Correct shielding in regards to the Roma, except for this, of course;

‘‘Jews have a responsibility to campaign for the rights of gypsies and travellers because of a historical kinship, maintains the director of a Jewish human rights charity.’‘

‘‘René Cassin’s Simone Abel has put travellers’ rights at the forefront of her organisation’s campaigning since joining the charity last year. Ms Abel, who trained as a lawyer, said: “There’s a very clear historical overlap of times when Jews and gypsies have been targets of prejudice. Our communities are similar sizes. We have both faced discrimination pre- and post-Holocaust, and been denied basic human rights. The majority of gypsies in Nazi Europe were exterminated alongside Jews.”

‘‘René Cassin is recruiting lawyers to work pro bono on traveller cases and lobby the government to enshrine gypsy and traveller property rights into legislation. It is also developing an educational programme with FFT on the issue, which they hope to bring to Jewish schools. It will include a theatrical production, presentations by Holocaust survivors and an online resource on the lack of human rights protection for travellers. ‘’

http://www.thejc.com/news/social-action/53073/fighting-rights-roma

But the usual suspects aside, there is an almost universal dread of the gypsies, David Blunketts warnings seem to have been met with widespread agreement, and the Anti Racist foot sloggers are, as far as I can tell, giving them and this issue a wide birth.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:58 | #

Andrei,

You are missing several points, including the one that nobody is confusing Romanis and Romanians.  The post is not an opinion piece but a brief journey through the development of the story, from EU law on freedom of movement to the people’s certain exasperation with Roma.

Morgoth,

Very good find on the inevitable Jewish support for Roma.  I wonder that Kevin MacDonald hasn’t applied his analysis of ethnic evolutionary strategy to Roma, and drawn the obvious, wholly unflattering parallels between the two groups.

Posted by Bill on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:04 | #

Leon @ 1 is dead right when he says…

But surely we should be worrying more about the million(S) of nonwhites who have already flooded the UK (not that I support the inter-European dilution of historic ethnies,

What would the English prefer?  A London’s Tower Hamlet teeming with the world’s dross or a Tower Hamlet teeming with the dross of Europe?

I know the the reality would be, given the chance, the British would choose neither, but not given the chance, they would overwhelmingly choose white Europeans over the world’s non white. 

The BBC (media) has done a great hatchet bait switch job on the British public by only allowing the immigration debate to be centred around EU migration.  The discourse of teeming non white migration into Britain is strictly off limits.

Hate laws and political correctness have gagged the white populace into supine silence.

There is still no sign of the media losing its grip on zero tolerance debate on non white immigration numbered in the millions.  There still is not the slightest sign that mass immigration into white lands is being publicly acknowedged let alone discussed in overt racial terms.

I think British opinion has accepted the BBC’s terms and are rolling over.  (Our Camp of the Saints moment) if you prefer.

From what I see of Farage he has got to up his game and play out of his skin if he’s going to survive the coming media offensive.  IMO, the more I see of him the less likely he is to succeed.  All that EU parliament guff was a charade, he won’t dare attempt such theatre with the British establishment.

Nationalist comment must not, cannot, allow the fifth column media to get away with it.

Yes, it’s becoming more intriguing than ever.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:33 | #

I stand corrected.  A friend has pointed me in the direction of “Diaspora Peoples: Preface to the Paperback Edition of A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy”

It is available as a PDF:

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/DiasporaPeoples.pdf

The section on the Roma begins on page 9 and runs for 11 pages.  It is worth reading, if only to establish what we already know in terms of academic studies.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:41 | #

I know from my friends in Italy that even in small places (valleys up in the foothills of the Alps overlooked by Monte Rosa etc.) Eastern European ‘visitors’ are a massive source of problems. Crime being one very obvious one.

No doubt there will be parts of British society that will welcome a massive influx of what is effectively ‘scab’ labour (at best) and all the extra, ever so exciting, ‘diversity’. After all Britain “could not” survive without all these additional people. After all British people are “genetically incapable” of driving taxi cabs or working in restaurants etc., if one listens to the political and business class.

The Poles coming over in their millions was bad enough in its negative impact on many quality of life issues. I can only imagine it will be even worst with this prospective influx.

It only makes Scottish independence with a popularist, post-modern, ethno-communitarian ‘new right’ (for want of a better term) emerging after the break-up to ‘defend the nation’ - even more appealing in my view.

What anyone can do about London - the demographic epicenter of ‘diversity’ is beyond me. England to declare itself independent of the ‘Home Counties’ or of London (aka New Abuja upon the Thames)?

Oh and for anyone interested in a brief introduction to the history of the interactions between England, Scotland and Ireland Jonathan Sumption QC (a supreme court judge these days) gave a lecture to the Denning Society (at Lincoln’s Inn) entitled ‘The Disunited Kingdom: England, Ireland and Scotland’.

The written version is available here - http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/speeches-131105.pdf

 

Posted by Lurker on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:05 | #

No doubt there will be parts of British society that will welcome a massive influx of what is effectively ‘scab’ labour

But the Roma? They are almost useless as labour.

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:19 | #

Putting the JQ aside for a moment.

The international banking cartels along with their political alliances have agreed to the terms set forth for the funding of governments and the lending to big businesses within the EU. The main stipulation is that those governments eradicate race based or ethnic nationalism.

The rational from their POV, or so they say, is: if nationalism is eradicated within the EU, it will virtually eliminate wars between those nation thus, as a result, protect/insure their investments. 

Obviously massive immigration—preferably immigrants possessing the greatest genetic distance—is the means they’re using to accomplish the eradication of race based nationalism.

What’s even more obvious is the PTB don’t give a sh-t that as a consequence of their vile unnatural scheme, they are genociding every distinct ethnicity within Europe. Permanently.

Just my two-penneth worth.

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:09 | #

Thorn@10

Yes, but those economic interests are beyond foolish, as English-expat-turned-American Peter Brimelow pointed out in Alien Nation. Multiethnicity/racialism increases domestic nationalism(s), though it also dilutes the nations and empowers native race-treasonous liberals. I am perennially shocked at the shortsightedness of Big Business, parasiting as it does off nations’ social capital for what will only, in historical terms, prove to have been very short term gains. Why don’t they understand that the long-term price of importing cheap labor for the purpose of driving downwards working class wages in the short run is the election of socialists like Obama (a direct product not only of mass immigration, but even arguably just of the 1986 amnesty signed by idiot Reagan - though I’ve read this was against Reagan’s better judgment, and basically foisted off on him by the Jewish neocons, who are still promoting mass immigration at this late date), whose assault on capitalism (and penchant for progressive taxation) far outweighs the labor costs “savings” of immigration?

The Jews, too, are clever but not wise. They think by diluting the Western nations they are facilitating their own EGI agenda, but that is likewise only a short term benefit (though “short term” in an historical context can encompass several generations). Ultimately, they are weakening whites, who, ironically, are their only global protectors (I’ve had some success using this argument with LA Jews of my acquaintance). As multiracialism breeds white nationalist reactions, Jews will one day find themselves caught between increasingly numerous and anti-semitic (or at least Jewish EGI-indifferent) muds, and racially awakened whites (I can’t believe that a conservative like Netanyahu doesn’t understand this, and at least oppose immigration to America on grounds that it will ultimately weaken the “special relationship”). I hope I like long enough to see this.

Lurker@9

I think the reference to scab labour referred to non-Roma East Europeans. The Gypsies are, indeed, an ethnie whose ethnoculture is based on permanent thieving (now of an institutionalized variety in some places due to Dr. Lister’s beloved social democratic welfarism - many of the various welfare/Medicare fraud schemes we endure in the US are run by either Jews or Gypsies, the latter often masking their ethnicity, a well-known and openly admitted tactic among the Roma), as opposed to productive work. While they are not like Jews insofar as the latter do make many positive economic contributions to society, it must be admitted that there are some similarities between them - both groups evolved culturally, and perhaps genetically, to thrive in diasporic/non-native contexts, including highly evolved in/out group attitudes (oh, if only whites had 10% of the in/out group mentality of these ethnic parasites!). I want better info on the numbers of “white” American criminals who are in fact Gypsy (I’ve heard it’s much higher than commonly supposed).

Bill@6

I remain forever shocked at how easily the British have rolled over and learned to tolerate the nonwhite presence. Britain is an ancient land, not “a nation of immigrants”. When normal white Britons experience the awfulness of nonwhite behaviours, how can they possibly not be not only generally against immigration (as various articles in liberal The Economist suggest they are, with immigration ranking just behind the economy/jobs in British concerns), but murderously enraged over it? Britain is not the US, with lots of empty land and an historically weak sense of nationalism (though not of racism). How can the English man-in-the-street tolerate this? Why wasn’t the National Front or BNP overflowing with members?   

This brings me back to my oft-cited point about the faulty genetics of whites. There is something biologically maladaptive about whites, not all, of course, but far too large a component. Our superior ethical virtue is a racial vice (at least at this degenerate stage in white civilization). That Europeans have succumbed to multiculti falsehoods as easily as Americans (with our historic black and Amerindian populations, as well as small numbers of Asians and Mexicans going back to the 19th century) suggests that the problem is sociobiological, not merely philosophical/cultural (perhaps it is false philosophy, especially in the field of ethics, reinforcing faulty genes).

As this is a race-wide phenomenon, with WPs a minority everywhere, only WP ingathering can save our race. White Zion or bust, people (my case gets stronger every day).

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:21 | #

Filthy liberal bastards (from The Economist):

PIGS can fly

Some European economic migrants are more welcome than others

Nov 16th 2013 |From the print edition

AT FIRST glance, the scene in the courtyard behind the Journeys hostel in King’s Cross resembles a gathering of backpackers anywhere in the world. Young men and women from various European countries lounge on wooden benches, rolling cigarettes, sipping beers and chatting. Yet it soon becomes clear that, a pair of bemused Swedes aside, they are not tourists. Rather, they are immigrants searching for flats and jobs.

British politicians and the press fret about Romanians and Bulgarians, who will soon gain the right to work in Britain. But a far bigger migration is under way from the older member states of the European Union. Since 2010 the number of national-insurance numbers issued to southern and western Europeans has shot up (see chart). For the past year more “old” Europeans than “new” Europeans have worked in Britain. Yet these new migrants are attracting little hostility. Their experience says much about British attitudes to immigration in general.

Until recently, migrants from countries such as Italy were few in number and affluent, says Beppe Severgnini, an Italian journalist based in London (who has in the past written for The Economist). Most came with jobs in hand, in London’s banks, hedge funds and consultancies; others came to study at Britain’s most celebrated universities. The 2011 census showed that, like the French, Italian and Spanish migrants were most concentrated in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea, London’s wealthiest boroughs. Many others lived in Oxford and Cambridge.

The new wave is different. Southern Europeans are moving in partly because of the opportunities London offers, but largely because of the ones that home does not. Josep Maria Cagigal Soler, a 24-year-old business graduate from Barcelona, is typical. He moved to England six months ago after spending a year failing to find a job in Spain, booking a few days in a hostel. He then moved into a shared flat in the East End (“It’s not the best, for what it costs,” he gripes) and found work, first at a Costa Coffee and then at LycaMobile, where he fields inquiries from fellow Spaniards.

Some skilled immigrants are doing well. Spanish web developers can command high salaries; Italian economists work in the Treasury. But, like Mr Cagigal Soler, most new arrivals tend to start out in poorly-paid work and live in the cheaper bits of inner London. Getting professional qualifications approved is expensive and finding good jobs takes time. Work in the catering industry, by contrast, is plentiful. Britain’s Italian restaurants, which have long been staffed by eastern Europeans, are once again hiring Italian waiters.

Those who do not speak good English or are otherwise poorly prepared end up in the grottier end of Britain’s informal labour market. Francesco Ponzo, a 25-year-old Italian who speaks excellent English, says that the first job he was offered was in a hotel at £25 ($40) for an eight-hour shift, about half the legal minimum wage. Daniela de Rosa of the Italian Project, a consultancy, worries about dodgy agencies that promise to arrange jobs for Italians in advance and then fail to deliver.

Oddly, the British either have not noticed or do not mind this influx. This may be because the newcomers are not visibly competing for public services. Unlike Poles and Lithuanians, Italian and Spanish women are not yet sending children to Britain’s schools. Most Spanish people find the NHS baffling, says Jorge Ruiz, who runs a Spanish-language blog in Britain. They tend to go home for medical or dental treatment. Though some claim benefits, this is not easy, nor is the British welfare system particularly generous.

A big difference between this migrant wave and many previous ones is that it is likely to go out again. Few southern Europeans expect to stay in Britain permanently. The cost of housing is too high; the weather is too miserable; the pull of family and friends at home can only be resisted for so long. If the euro-zone economy recovers, many will return home, their résumés strengthened by a spell abroad. Indeed, one group of similar migrants is already less evident in London. Until a few years ago it was hard to walk around Clapham on a Friday night without tripping over drunk Australians. Now they have been replaced by Italians.

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:38 | #

More such international alliances of the Far Right are needed (note: I regard both Wilders and especially Le Pen as rather liberal, but still wish them well - let them succeed, then we will move “the goalposts” still further down the road ...):

This monster called Europe

Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders form a Eurosceptic alliance

Nov 16th 2013 | AMSTERDAM |From the print edition

GEERT WILDERS and his Party for Freedom owe their meteoric rise in Dutch politics over the past years to fierce attacks on Islam. Marine Le Pen’s Front National (FN) built its popularity on campaigns against immigration, back in the days when it was led by her father Jean-Marie. But in recent years both politicians have shifted the focus of their rhetoric towards another bête noire of the far right, the European Union.

On November 13th they held a press conference in The Hague to announce that they will be co-operating in the elections for the European Parliament next spring and hope to form a new Eurosceptic bloc. Their aim, as Mr Wilders put it, is to “fight this monster called Europe”; Ms Le Pen spoke of a system that “has enslaved our various peoples”. They want to end the common currency, remove the authority of Brussels over national budgets, and undo the project of integration driven with so much idealism by two generations of European politicians.

Far-right politicians are a touchy lot, and the new collaboration could be doomed by the same national cleavages that have hobbled earlier efforts to form cross-border Eurosceptic alliances. The European Parliament already boasts one such coalition, the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group, which has done little to slow integration.

Mr Wilders and Ms Le Pen did not have much to say about how their faction meant to roll back the tide. But it is hard to ignore the fact that these two far-right parties are leading the polls in their respective countries. Given popular anger over Europe’s stagnant economies and a sense of alienation from Brussels, the new alliance between the Party for Freedom and the FN could yet set the tone for next spring’s European Parliament elections.

The link with the FN is the biggest success so far in the quest for international allies that Mr Wilders launched this spring. But building international co-operation between European political parties whose raison d’être is to dismantle European co-operation is no easy task. Britain’s UK Independence Party has rejected the overtures; its leader wants nothing to do with Mr Wilders’s anti-Islam views. Commentators in the Netherlands expected that Mr Wilders’s courtship of Ms Le Pen would founder similarly. When he launched the Party for Freedom in 2006, he was at pains to insist it would not be a Dutch version of the FN. Mr Wilders is strongly pro-Zionist; the FN is at best even-handed towards Israel, and Ms Le Pen’s father has been charged with denying the Holocaust.

As significant, it is a peculiarity of Dutch politics that gay rights is as much a right-wing cause there as a left-wing one. The Netherlands was the first country to legalise same-sex marriage in 2001, and Mr Wilders often uses accusations of homophobia to bash the country’s Muslim minority. In France the right is culturally traditionalist, and Ms Le Pen opposed gay marriage during the divisive French campaign over legalisation early this year.

But Europhiles hoping that such divisions will doom co-operation are flattering themselves. At their joint appearance, the party leaders easily brushed aside questions about their ideological differences. Mr Wilders said Ms Le Pen was the leader of the FN now, not her father, and that she harboured “not a millimetre of racism or anti-Semitism”. Ms Le Pen said there would be some differences of opinion “even in a marriage” and ridiculed opposition efforts to play up the breach: “In France tomorrow they’ll tell me, oh là l à, Geert Wilders has said this and that about the Koran!”

Perhaps for reasons of political expediency, the FN leader is more careful than Mr Wilders when she explains why Muslim immigration is a grave threat. He calls for a ban on the Koran and claims that Islam is a fascist ideology. Yet their views are not that far apart: Ms Le Pen is facing charges for comparing the spillover of Islamic prayers into the streets to the Nazi occupation and she recently sparked a furore when she seemed to suggest that four French hostages released by al-Qaeda after years in captivity had become Islamists because they sported long beards.

Political analysts see little reason why the two parties’ far-right voters would be alienated by associations with foreign parties. Mr Wilders’s voters tend to be at the lower end of the informational spectrum and, while they resent Brussels, they have little interest in the internal politics of other European countries. Among the Party for Freedom’s voters, says Chris Aalberts, a Dutch expert on the party, “nobody knows what Marine Le Pen thinks or what her standpoints are”.

The larger question may be what, given the disconnect between national political environments in Europe, the two party leaders expect to gain from their alliance. Ms Le Pen’s answer was the most interesting: “The time when patriotic movements were divided, intimidated, or even terrorised by demonising each other—that time is over.” For far-right nationalist parties, international co-operation accords a type of recognition that could help overcome the disdain and antagonism of the press and political elites. The Party for Freedom and the FN are already riding high in the polls among voters who want to send a message of protest. If international co-operation leads voters to take them more seriously, European elections next May could end up sending a strong one.

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:39 | #

correction: I ought to have said above “down the field”.

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:07 | #

Would WPs really like to understand why the West is dying? Skim this freakish article, and then read the astounding comments:

http://www.oprah.com/relationships/How-a-Hong-Kong-Alley-Rat-Changed-One-Couples-Life

There are so many fascinating and relevant issues implicit in this ridiculous story and its bizarre responses.

Only a conservative authoritarianism of the old school can save us now. And a lot of people (including many genetically related to us) will have to die first ...

Posted by Malham on Fri, 15 Nov 2013 03:39 | #

No offense to any Romanians or Bulgarians, and I’m not saying they’re as bad as gypsies, pakis, etc., but Romanians and Bulgarians are greasy as hell.

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 15 Nov 2013 04:48 | #

The rats have more sense than the Liberals as per this article from Oxford University’s website :

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news-stories/2012/120801.html

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 15 Nov 2013 04:51 | #

Erratum.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2012/120801.html

Posted by wobbly on Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:55 | #

Morgoth

As thing starts to unfold I’ve noticed a distinct lack of Politically Correct shielding in regards to the Roma, except for this, of course

As the indigenous population have been mostly cleansed from the inner cities the ethnic conflicts are and will increasingly be non-white vs non-white. This is what has happened here as its Pakistanis mounting anti-Roma street patrols. PC paralysis ensues because there’s no white people to blame.

.

Andrei

Most nationalists know the difference between Roma and Romanians - even though the media try to disguise it as much as possible - but people in western europe have been brainwashed for sixty years over race so it’s easier to talk about white eastern europeans. If you talk about non-white immigration their brainwashing triggers and they walk away. If there were no eastern europeans it wouldn’t be possible to talk about immigration at all.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:05 | #

Interesting BBC doc on these disgusting Gypsies, and how this immoral ethnic group is ruining both Spain and Italy (you Brits have wonderful things to look forward to):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGDj0B5WQaA

My YouTube comment on the above:

These Gypsies (thank God they’re called by their proper, non-PC name) are among the scum of the Earth. Whatever their “human rights”, they have a defective culture which violates basic ethical norms, and imperils those healthier cultures which (insanely) generously allow these criminals to dwell in their midst. The only solution (short of Hitler’s Final one) is to expel all the Gypsies from Europe (and all other non-Europeans from Europe, too - let’s not forget the terrorism and child-pimping brought by Muslims, or the bestial criminality by Africans). We need to admit to ourselves that whites are a superior race, but our virtue and altruism, as exemplified by the fools running that charity ‘casa’, get abused by other races not as enlightened (or genetically evolved) as we are. Let us bring the Era of Racial Integration to an end. Whites can only further evolve (and be a beacon of enlightened civilization to the rest of humanity) if we rigorously, genetically and territorially, segregate ourselves from our inferiors.

Posted by @Haller on Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:21 | #

Leon,

[I attempted to leave this reply on the other thread, but for whatever reason it didn’t show up. I thought I’d try my luck here in case it was DanielS’ doing.—Silver]

If I gave you the impression I was taking you to task for, shall we say, ‘genetic laxity’ I must apologize for the confusion.  Politically, I consider genetics geek-talk oftentimes worse than useless (though it has a place), and on a personal level I find it all such a dreadful bore I’ll probably forever remain an ignoramus. 

No, my point was this: while it may not be possible to improve much on your simple and agreeable formulation (your ‘rough and ready standard’), the implications that flow from it can be ‘improved’; they can, for a start, be elucidated and expanded upon, and in a way that anticipates and inures against the inevitable fears and doubts that arise, the ‘blanks’ that individuals fill in with nightmarish scenarios of their own invention.  So much can be said here that isn’t said (not by WNs it isn’t) that one cannot be faulted for harboring suspicions that this apparent change of heart, this newly found concern for the interests of ‘grey-area parties,’ this willingness to parley, as it were, with foe and with former foe alike, represents no more than the latest in a long line of WN efforts to sugarcoat their message, to disguise their true intentions, to rope the dupes into their plot and then bare their fangs at the opportune moment. 

There are many in your ranks, you’ll concede, who have long felt that the there has already been too much talk, that the time for action has arrived; they will be disappointed to learn, then, that the talk—the real talk—is only just beginning.  I can assert with confidence that I speak for many when I suggest that you can demonstrate your good will and your intention to comply with the standards you have set forth by pushing back against these forces of disruption and mayhem.  It won’t do any good at all for the likes of me to push back; it’s a task only someone in your position is fit for. 

As for the fuzziness of biological classifications, you needn’t convince me.  I’ve lived with that fuzziness my entire life.  In fact, the Australia of today can in many ways be likened to the United States of c.1950.  Three generations in, on the average, of a mass southern and eastern european presence, and despite a lingering resentment over that presence on the one side and memories passed through the generations of facing down the Anglo-Saxon hate machine (permit me some lighthearted humor) on the other, rancor is on the ebb and there an incipient sense that our fates, for better or worse, are now intertwined*. 

(*Intertwined, but not inextricably linked.  I, for one, would be happy to ‘let you go,’ to part ways with you—preferably amicably, but if not, well, I tried…  But these are issues for another day.  For the moment, the more pressing concern is to get race on the table, to see to it that white racial concerns are addressed at the cultural and political level.)

Posted by @GW on Fri, 15 Nov 2013 19:15 | #

GW,

[Likewise I’m replying to points you made in the other thread here in case they don’t appear there.—Silver.]

I really don’t think your doing yourself any favors at all with those arguments. 

Taking them in turn,

From that we derive the genetic interest in group preservation and continuity, which is the highest interest in human life.

  If racial preservation is the be all and end all of human existence than why not raise people in cages in order minimize the risks of them stepping out into the world and establishing contact with other groups, exposing them to the attendant risk of miscegenation?  They won’t miss anything since they’re already achieving their highest possible purpose.  I’m sure there are some racialists out there to whom such suggestions are music to the ears but do you ever wonder how that comes across to the uninitiated?  Or do you stop to think that perhaps some of those opposed are opposed precisely because of such a fear that the nationalist will take the human ties that bind and forge them into shackles that bind?  That far from being a joy racial identity will become a burden?  I’m afraid your line of reasoning here neatly encapsulates the wisdom of the aphorism “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” Far better to establish, I would think, that racial identity and racial preservation are a necessary component of a life well lived, rather than the only thing worth living for.

On the other hand, Brazil was founded colonially 600 years ago and there is still no Brazilian ethnicity - no shared genetic distinctiveness - because of the genetic distance between the racial groups involved.

This is flatly incorrect (and I’m not even referring to your desperate exaggeration “600 years,” since it was only “discovered” in 1500 and remained little more than a sparsely populated trading post for the next century).  Even though one could most certainly argue that a Brazilian ethnicity exists (and has existed for quite some time), it’s an enormous country with so many regional identities that one could quibble interminably about individual loyalties, so put Brazil aside.  Consider a Cuba or a Puerto Rico or a Dominican Republic. It is beyond reasonable dispute that those ethnicities exist, no matter the genetic disparity between their founding components, which was no less great than Brazil’s.  There are all manner of internal racial divides in those countries, but it’s absurd to suggest the groups are at war with each other.  Racial difference in those cultures is simply a fact of ethnic existence; some react to that fact agreeably, others less so, but virtually none would contend that those racial differences invalidate their ethnic identity. 

Ethnic existence is best treated as an event, because by so considering it it allows to define and refine our sense of ethnic belonging.  Our wishes, however do not alter the fact that, however much we deplore it, ethnicity is always a process, one sometimes occurring more rapidly, at other times imperceptibly slowly, but a process always.  The trick, from a racialist or nationalist perspective, is to take as much control of that process as is compatible with other legitimate human concerns, not to deny that the process occurs at all.

A third is to quote the on-going Oxford group study of the genetics of Britian, thus:

This is not unreasonable, but it properly fits at the end, not at the beginning. That is to say that if a person doesn’t care—or at least is willing, at least for the time being, to pretend that he doesn’t care—about his racial interests based on the evidence of his own eyes he is not particularly likely to start caring based on the evidence of ‘hapmaps.’ If a person does come around to a racial point of view, however, then hard data like this can help him solidify that view.  More importantly, though, in a society that does take its racial existence seriously hard data can become an essential tool of ‘demographic management,’ used to enhance ‘demographic decision-making’—terms (or substitutes for them) that will have to enter the cultural and political lexicon over the course of time if outcomes favorable to the racialist are to be realized.

... and no opponent has managed to dent it yet.  WNs need such a temporized definition focussed on relation, not genetic purity.

They haven’t managed to dent it because even opponents can recognize its essential reasonableness—that is, IF they were to consider racial existence important and worthy of defense THEN the chronological definition of races or ethnies would be an eminently reasonable way to go about defining their outer limits. 

The trick, to repeat myself, is to get people to value racial existence.  Your ‘bullying’ people with facts and (in your view) ‘airtight logic’ has rather the opposite effect: it annoys them and creates resentment towards you rather than towards race-replacement policies.  Surely by now it’s clear that facts by themselves are impotent versus the moral glow of racial rectitude.  People must be reached at the level of emotion before they take seriously what you have to say at the level of fact and reason.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Nov 2013 01:02 | #

why not raise people in cages

Because human freedom is adaptive.  The traits of individualism and altruism (if these are adequate descriptors, which I doubt) counsel against such an abomination, and both are adaptive (their apparent opposition has something to do with liberalism, not with our coherent nature).

Consider a Cuba or a Puerto Rico or a Dominican Republic.

So does this man:

http://bashapedia.pbworks.com/f/Fidel in power.jpg

... have the same ethnicity as this man:

Put another way, let us suppose that Castro has 25% negro admixture and the other guy has 15% European admixture, do they have the same ethnicity?  Cuba was settled by the Spanish from 1511 and African slaves were imported from 1550.  Four and a half centuries and still this diversity.

There are all manner of internal racial divide

No doubt.

“virtually none would contend that those racial differences invalidate their ethnic identity”

Actually, the case in point - English ethnicity - is a national ethnicity.  There are no English blacks, no English Asians.  Cuban blacks doubtless map as a gene cluster but it is not a national ethnicity.  What unites them with other Cuban groups is a shared history and place.  Cuba is a Multicult; and the development of the Multicult in the European heartland is not the production of black German ethnicity or North African French ethnicity.  It is the destruction of German ethnicity and French ethnicity.

Only national ethnicity need interest us.  The rest is the Multicult.

if a person doesn’t care

... it is because of the atomising and self-estranging nature of liberalism (as the formative thought-world of our age).  The way to change this is to change the thought-world.

Your ‘bullying’ people with facts and (in your view) ‘airtight logic’ has rather the opposite effect: it annoys them and creates resentment towards you rather than towards race-replacement policies.

My concern at this juncture is not to convert the anti-racists, liberals, libertarians, race-mixers, and foreigners who bring forward arguments against our nationalism, but to humiliate them ... to expose them as flawed men, and their magic words as powerless.  It is public discourse I seek to free.  It is free discourse which will free the ordinary man into his own nature, not direct arguments, whether those are couched in terms that appeal to the intellect or the emotions.

Posted by Gogol on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 09:27 | #

It’s kicking off at the Daily Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10452130/Roma-in-Sheffield-When-it-goes-off-it-will-be-like-an-atom-bomb-here.html#comment-1126692255

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 11:13 | #

Fact-based article on Gypsy crime in the USA (useful info for Americans):

http://www.policemag.com/channel/gangs/articles/2001/06/gypsies-kings-of-con.aspx

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 12:04 | #

Silver@21

Interesting comment, though perhaps more relevant to your experience in Oz than to that of whites in the US (esp hyper-diverse LA).

I’ve never been to Australia (I’d very much like to go, however; Tasmania, especially; NZ, too!). But I can well imagine a bit of (ethno)cultural resentment still lingering between the “True Aussies” (those of Anglo descent; perhaps even just those of Old Stock (criminal?) descent), a Nordic/Celtic (fair-skinned and haired) people (eg, Nicole Kidman, Naomi Watts, Russell Crowe, Guy Pearce, etc), and those visibly distinctive, Mediterranean, postwar immigrant ‘ethnics’. Of course, in the face of the possibility of a vast Asian Invasion, such differences tend to come to be seen as minimal.

That minimization of intra-white ethnic competition or enmity has already overwhelmingly occurred in the US, except in the really perfervid imaginations of the most extreme WNs (Nordicists). I happen to be a bit of a Nordicist myself. I do think racial Nordics, who can be French, Spanish, Italian, etc, too, are civilizationally superior to non-Nordic whites, and I believe the record of human accomplishment bears this out. Of course, to say that a Swede is, per se, necessarily ‘superior’ to an Italian or Frenchman is ridiculous; beyond the obvious (some blacks are superior to some whites), what matters even for generalization are the specifically racial proportions. The French are generally less Aryan than the Swedish, but Catherine Deneuve is as clearly Aryan as Greta Garbo. 

I strongly believe that the fairer elements in Europe were largely responsible for the development of European High Civilization, and that the least valuable elements also tended to be the darkest. I am therefore far more concerned with the survival, and eventually, population growth, of Nordics than of non-Nordic whites (though I am equally concerned with their genetic improvement - I am a passionate eugenicist, as well as anti-dysgenicist - as well as return to moral and cultural traditionalism).

But competition/hostility from still-more genetically distant aliens has a way of minimizing lesser EGI conflicts. All the European peoples (except the Muslim converts - and I don’t know their exact racial status - eg, should Albanians be viewed as racially white? as European/Occidental at all?) have contributed (albeit unequally) to the development of Western Civ, and all the particular ethnocultures have value in themselves. Moreover, from a “clash of civilizations” perspective, all are basically the same (ie, the cultural or capability differences between a Bulgar and a Dane are as nothing set against those between a European white man and an Arab Muslim). Therefore, it seems merely prudent that WPs should go out of their way to promote mutual tolerance and sympathy between the white peoples, while maximizing the sense of white difference from nonwhites.

That is my position, anyway. I don’t assert any European ethnic supremacism (though in my heart, I think Germans really are collectively the best - and that had the 20th C been a “German Century”  - as many at the outset thought it would be - instead of an Anglo-American one, the position of whites in the world today would be vastly stronger). I also support European ethnonationalism only as a counterweight to the NWO; I am a racial nationalist (though I prefer “white preservationist” to “white nationalist”, mainly because the latter has more aggressive and therefore morally problematic connotations).

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:14 | #

The I thought odious Guardian has an article on UK public’s ever-growing disenchantment with immigration.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/25/rift-eu-immigration-to-britain

Many of the comments were silly, but some were very helpful, like this one:

grahamjt
25 November 2013 1:04pm

Recommend
34
The fact is, whether we like it or not, mass immigration policies have been intensely racist against the pre-existing people of this country. How many times have we seen the justification of how useless the young or certain sections of our population are, how “hideously white” certain organisations are, how we are a mongrel nation of immigrants, and how it is racist being concerned with the mass colonisation of your country or objecting to practices that wind back social advances. Can you imagine if the same tactics and words were used against immigrants. They would quite rightly be howled down in a storm of protest. We simply tolerate it like sheep waiting in a patient line at the slaughterhouse - so far, at least.

Looking at the scale can you imagine what would be said if within 50 years 350,000,000 white Europeans had descended on the Subcontinent and taken up permanent residence, or 300,000,000 had gone to Africa and done the same? Instead we have the UN telling us we should actively work to reduce our own cultural homogeneity significantly. We never hear the last of Empire and our colonisation. At the height of the Raj there were 40,000 white Europeans among 300,000,000 people. There were proportionately far fewer whites in Africa. The scale of colonisation here is absolutely gigantic in comparison.

Europe is heading inexorably toward a civil war if this continues. We already have fighters from certain communities going out to practice their warcraft as terrorist fighters - one wonders why. Regrettably the cat is well and truly out of the bag. I seriously fear for my children and their children. They can’t go ‘home’ if things get too bad. I doubt I am alone - indeed I know I’m not.

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:44 | #

Free Scotland?

Scotland’s Independence Bid: History, Prospects, Challenges

Roland Flamini

At exactly 17:14 on the evening of September 15, 2012, in Barcelona’s Camp Nou stadium, thousands of fans at a packed soccer game stood up as one and chanted, “Independence!” The timing was chosen to coincide with the year 1714, when Spanish troops annexed Catalonia—of which Barcelona is the capital—to Spain. Catalonia has its own distinct language and culture, and Catalan activists have been fanning the flames of separatism ever since.

Cut to Edinburgh one month later, where British Prime Minister David Cameron and Alex Salmond, first minister of the Scottish Parliament and leader of the left-of-center Scottish National Party (SNP), signed an agreement for a 2014 referendum that could end the Act of Union of 1707 and allow Scotland to leave the United Kingdom and become an independent country. Unlike the government in Madrid, which has flatly refused to agree to a referendum on Catalonia gaining its independence, the UK government at Westminster has pragmatically agreed to a referendum—and, in effect, committed itself to accepting the outcome.

With most polls showing that only a third of Scotland’s four million plus voters currently favor Scottish independence, Cameron may think that agreeing to a referendum is not much of a political gamble: if the referendum were held today, a majority in favor of remaining in the union—a “no” vote, as the referendum question is expected to be phrased—would be the most likely outcome. But as Nicola McEwan, director of Public Policy at the University of Edinburgh’s Academy of Government, points out, “two years is a long time in politics, and it is impossible to predict how opinion will develop.”

What the referendum agreement has done is to impose a political deadline one way or the other on the hot issue of independence. Underneath the British reserve, there is a growing concern in London over how separation could weaken Britain’s position in the world. For example, could the “Disunited Kingdom” justify retaining a seat on the UN Security Council? On the Scottish side, Salmond is seen as betting independence on one throw of the dice. The referendum, he has said, is “a once-in-a-generation event.”

Both sides have launched major efforts at a cost of millions of dollars to win over “the heart and the head” (as Cameron put it) of the Scottish electorate; a dozen organizations are now engaged in the fight over Scotland’s constitutional future. “Yes Scotland” is the largest pro-independence group spearheading the breakaway campaign. Its main opponent, “Better Together,” advocates remaining in the union.

Yes Scotland has launched a drive to collect a million signatures in support of the referendum by voting day. The declaration the Scots are being asked to sign says, in part, “I believe that it is fundamentally better for us if all decisions about Scotland’s future are taken by the people who care most about Scotland, that is, by the people of Scotland. Being independent means Scotland’s future will be in Scotland’s hands.” Inevitably, celebrities add luster to the cause: the actors Sean Connery (a.k.a. James Bond), Alan Cumming (who introduces Masterpiece Mystery on PBS), and Brian Cox are highly visible supporters of independence.

Within weeks of signing the referendum agreement, the British government published the first of a series of what it calls “analysis papers” about Scotland’s importance to the union, and the benefits it derives from the affiliation. The SNP responded by releasing a “road map” outlining the steps from the referendum to full statehood early in 2016.

Salmond picked the autumn of 2014 as the referendum date because it coincides with a series of major sporting events that he hopes will make Scots feel more patriotic—the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, the Ryder Cup golf tournament at Gleneagles, and a Year of Homecoming for the Scottish diaspora. David Cameron has since announced a series of events, marking the hundredth anniversary of World War I, to focus attention on the joint British effort in that conflict.

There are no such prospects for separatism—as it’s described in the Spanish version—for the semi-autonomous region of Catalonia, where a festering issue is its major contribution to the national economy (nineteen percent of Spain’s GDP) and of course a bitterness stretching back to the Civil War and beyond. The situation has been worsened by Catalan protests over twenty-six percent unemployment and the way Madrid is mishandling—as the Catalans see it—the country’s economic crisis. The Spanish government’s gamble is that separatist sentiment will calm down once the grim economy improves, allowing the national government to be more generous with subsidies and unemployment-reducing public works.

The Scottish and Catalan situations are by no means similar, but both pro-independence movements have learned to deal with the analogy they pose to each other. When the pro-independence Catalan ruling party Convergència i Unió (CiU) did less well than expected in elections last November, and its leader, Artur Mas, had to form a coalition to remain in power, Salmond’s SNP distanced itself from the Catalans, and SNP leaders sought to reassure their own supporters by stressing the different circumstances of the two parties. A success in Scotland will encourage the Catalans as well as other European independence movements such as the Walloons and the Flemish in Belgium; but a decisive “No” by the Scots could dent “Yes” sentiment on the continent.

Salmond’s “prosperous and successful European country, reflecting Scottish values of fairness and opportunity, promoting equality and social cohesion, with a new place in the world as an independent nation,” would be a country with its own fifteen-thousand-strong standing army (plus five thousand reserves), navy, and air force, the pound sterling for its currency, and North Sea oil and gas revenues from ninety percent of the offshore fields, plus membership of NATO, the European Union, and the British Commonwealth, with the queen as head of state.

Queen Elizabeth II, who spends two months every autumn at Balmoral Castle, in the Scottish Highlands, has not commented on Scotland’s desire for independence, but if the outcome of the referendum releases Scotland from the union and the British Parliament ratifies the separation, there would surely be no obstacle to the queen remaining head of state, just as she is of Australia, Canada, and other Commonwealth countries.

Doubts over whether an independent Scotland could remain a member of the European Union—and have access to its agriculture subsidies—are said to be discouraging many potential supporters. The EU’s ruling European Commission has tried to stay out of the Scottish referendum argument, but the signs are that Scotland would have to move to the back of the line and go through the so-called accession—the lengthy process of applying for membership—which typically takes years. The same would apply to a seat in the United Nations.

“We are going to be simply arguing for a transition from membership as part of the UK to membership as an independent country, but on the same terms,” Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s deputy first minister, recently told the Times of London, sketching Edinburgh’s case. “We’re simply arguing for a continuation of the status quo.” But in December, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso told the BBC that Scotland would be treated as a new applicant. If “one part of a country” was to become independent “it has to apply to the European Union for membership according to the rules,” Barroso said. “That’s obvious.” And Spanish government officials have hinted strongly that Spain would exercise its veto right in the European Union to block Scotland’s entry as a warning to the Catalans.

Yet an off-the-cuff statement to the BBC is hardly conclusive, and the battle over EU membership is way down in the sequence of events on the road to independence. First the Scots have to go to the polls to answer the single question on the ballot, which, according to press reports, is expected to be: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

The referendum is another historic landmark in the complex and often turbulent relationship between the two neighbors going back to Roman times, when the Roman emperor Hadrian built a wall at the northern end of Britain to keep out the marauding Scottish tribes. But for centuries after that it was more a matter of the Scots fighting off attempts by their larger neighbor to subjugate their country than of their own marauding.

Early Scottish heroes in these wars of independence included William Wallace (subject of the Academy Award–winning film Braveheart) and Robert the Bruce, who, in 1314, defeated the English king, Edward II, at Bannockburn. (Next year’s centenary celebrations of this victory will provide a symbolic backdrop for the referendum.) In 1613, King James VI of Scotland also became king of England, but the move from regal union to parliamentary union was far from seamless and wasn’t actually locked up until ninety-four years later.

Scottish acceptance of the 1707 Act of Union, after endless negotiations, was the result of a combination of factors, including the economic fallout from a failed attempt by Scotland to set up an entrepôt base in Panama, which had ruined the country financially. The Scottish Parliament was abolished in return for a mere forty-five seats in the House of Commons at Westminster, and fourteen Scottish lords permitted in the upper house. The Scots began to pay English taxes, but retained their own legal system, churches, and universities. Resentment simmered, especially among the Jacobites, secret supporters of “the Young Pretender,” the Catholic son of James II, who had been forced, in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, to abdicate in favor of a succession of Protestant princes from Europe, ultimately leading to the Hanoverian dynasty. The poet Robert Burns angrily accused the Scottish signatories of the Act of Union as being “bought and sold for English gold.”

The Jacobites mounted two serious challenges to the Union in 1715 and 1745, both of which failed. The Jacobite threat ended with the latter—an attempted invasion by James II’s grandson, Prince Charles, better known in history and folklore as Bonnie Prince Charlie, was crushed at Culloden, and his remaining followers hunted down with extraordinary ferocity.

In the nineteenth century, the Scots developed a taste for empire building as soldiers, colonizers, and traders, and Scotland played a significant role in the emergence of imperial Britain. But Scottish nationalism was always present, just under the surface of daily life, as the Scots continued to campaign for some form of “home rule.” In 1998, the government of Tony Blair, responding to growing demands, agreed to so-called “devolution” in which the Scottish Parliament would be directly elected with wide legislative powers. Edinburgh got a regional government with wide-ranging powers over education, justice, and health policies, but with the UK government in charge of most taxation, social welfare, and the economy, plus defense and foreign policy issues.

Then, in 2011, Alex Salmond and the Scottish National Party won a sweeping electoral victory. The time had come to move to the next level—a demand for independence.

If the Scots vote “yes” in 2014, lengthy negotiations with London are expected to follow, covering the many issues requiring agreement, and an independent Scotland is not likely to be declared before 2016. Defense will be a big question. The SNP wants a nuclear-free Scotland, and will therefore be expected to request the withdrawal of the Royal Navy’s nuclear submarines, armed with Trident missiles, from their base at Faslane, near Glasgow. The new Scottish defense force will be formed from some of the most famous regiments in the British army, troops that covered themselves in glory fighting for the empire in Spain and Portugal, in Africa, Asia, and in India. But the SNP intends to apply for NATO membership, so close cooperation with UK forces is expected to continue under the NATO umbrella.

The Scots will also have to negotiate with Britain to stay in the pound sterling zone. But such an outcome could be complicated if they manage to overcome the obstacles to joining the European Union because only the UK and Denmark have been allowed to opt out of the eurozone, and Brussels is determined not to make that same concession again.

A battery of polls this year have produced results ranging from twenty-six percent in favor of independence at the lower end, to a high end of forty-one percent, depending on the wording of the question. When the question mentions leaving the UK, the “yes” vote drops. But in all the polls, the percentage of respondents who wish to remain in the union never goes below fifty percent. “The Scots are a practical people and Salmond’s challenge is to persuade them that they would be better off on their own than as part of the UK,” says a European diplomat in London, “that independence would be good for their pockets.”

So would it? What makes Scottish independence even remotely realistic is oil and gas revenue that currently flows into the UK treasury. The SNP says Scotland is entitled to income from about ninety percent of the oil and gas platforms in the North Sea—or $14.2 billion a year in recent years. Of that, Scotland’s planned defense budget would eat up $3.7 billion, about the same as Denmark’s or Norway’s.

Salmond remains confident that Scotland would continue to have close economic ties with Britain, and he says foreign investors have not been scared away by the prospect of independence. According to a report by the global accounting firm of Ernst & Young, more new foreign businesses were established in Scotland in 2011 than in any other part of the United Kingdom, and the companies included Amazon and Toshiba.

Scottish Americans have rallied behind the idea of an independent Scotland, but official Washington is less enthusiastic. “An independent Scotland would significantly weaken the foremost military and diplomatic ally of the United States, while creating another European mini-state unable to contribute meaningfully to global security,” the Washington Post stated in a recent editorial. But while Washington may play a modest behind-the-scenes role in the referendum, the matter now is in other hands.

Roland Flamini is a freelance journalist and former foreign correspondent and bureau chief for Time magazine in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere.

Posted by Mick Lately on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:59 | #

Difficult to sort out the putative paid-EU-trolls from the ‘useful idiots’ but these EU apologists in the comments thread make me very very angry:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/15/george-osborne-reform-eu-quits-tory-dismantling

 

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 02:51 | #

Mick - I barely bother reading the Guardian anymore, too upsetting!

I’d love to join in that thread but I’ve been banned a few times and it doesn’t seem worth the effort anymore. I’ll only get banned again and all my comments deleted, so what’s the point?

Try to see it in a positive light. All those ratbags on CiF are just jerking each other off, they don’t last five minutes out in the open away from full-spectrum Guardian moderation so they are just wasting their time. Too busy whining about the tories, as if that false opposition meant anything.

2000+ comments - why all the interest, after all, the three main parties fully support the EU so what are those CiFers worried about? Well it’s good they’re making such a fuss, it means they’re scared, they know the tide is turning.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 03:30 | #

Lurker,

If GW decides to terminate MR, PLEASE give readers a few weeks’ worth of advance warning, just so if we infrequently check MR we will nevertheless have the time to copy/paste any old comments (or posts) we might wish to preserve for ourselves.

Thanks.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:43 | #

Leon, why not gather your comments for your archives anyway? You might take them and shop them around to a place like Tradyouth, someplace where they might be appreciated. I say “like” tradyouth, as I understand that Parrott doesn’t go for your angle either. But that’s the idea, some site that sees Christianity as integral. Your economic predilections are somewhat in disfavor among WN, but you may find some appreciation out there, somewhere.

As for the free-thinking fare here at MR, there’ll be more served-up shortly. The biology and intellectual heritage of the European race and what is worth discussing does not depend upon the church or your conceits.

Go to Church, call your congressman to protest immigration, start up a catholic site, nobody is stopping you, we’ll be fine, thanks.

Posted by Dude on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:18 | #

I joined in on CiF (WL) some time past on this page and was surprised that many of the commenters were not wholly antagonistic, which I guess is something for the Guardian.

Posted by Lurker on Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:02 | #

Dude - maybe I’m IP banned or something. I can’t last 5 minutes on there!

Leon - I noted your comment but I’m not aware of any impending MR shutdown.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 20 Jan 2014 05:31 | #

To Leon and others musing on the end of MR or GW’s ‘failures’ - please I think such reports/fears are grossly exaggerated.

For example, it’s recently been Christmas and New Year and I certainly prioritise friends and family at that time of year, and for example, the average academic has exams to set and mark at this time of year (January) too. I’m sure GW also has other more pressing matters to attended to at the moment. The people that run and contribute to the site all have (I’m sure) other commitments etc., and don’t exist simply to provide daily content for half-wits to comment on.

I mean if you want that type of space invite Richards back and you can all ‘enjoy’ the daily fuck-wittery “It’s all a conspiracy of the evil tribe” asinine insanity ad nauseam (or ad libitum for the brain dead and conceptually confused that like that sort of thing). All delivered with a tragically misplaced portentousness naturally. We are being told the ‘secret’ truth of history, the universe, and everything don’t ya know?

The real issue is this. I could try to put together an essay on the philosophy of Merleau-Ponty (on say interiority and the social) or discuss Heidegger’s fourfold concept as philosophically re-imagined by Graham Harman (in his object orientated ontology incorporating time, space, eidos, and essence as the fourfold structure of reality as such). However, even if such material was competently described and explained all we would get as discussion is “what the fuck are you on about?”, “why is this obscure crap relevant?” etc., which is not the response one would hope for (but sadly par for the course).

The ontology project is relevant as modernity – that is liberal modernity – has at its core a fundamentally wrong picture of the world. Its ontology is wrong. It’s a world-view which in my view is leading, auto-teleologically (more accurately perhaps via a form of auto-poiesis) towards collective disaster. And if not quite disaster a radically sub-optimal situation (especially for one of the world true minorities namely Europeans). Now by liberal modernity I emphatically do simply mean whatever Democrats have said since the 1960s (this seems very hard for some people to grasp) – I mean how we have viewed the world from I guess the 15th/16th century onwards.

The issue is that anyone – at any intellectual level – that questions the deep ‘axiomatic’ assumptions of modernity (as such) has to clear away so much half-baked conceptual detritus to even have a starting point for useful discussion that alone is a massive effort. After all so much of modernity is taken as unquestionably true (the water the fish swim in hence never ‘see’) that we contra-moderns, ‘alternative moderns’ or even post-moderns have an uphill task to be heard. We have to compose arid essays on why the half-truths of modernity are half-truths and those in the total grip of the modern only have to mouth a few of those half-truths to feel reassured that the matter is settled and there’s “nothing to see here – move right along please”.

Thus there is a profound asymmetry at work between those that would wish to investigate the problematic nature of modernity and modern thought and those that don’t even see an issue to be discussed (or can at best only recognise some of the surface issues at hand). In this way it reflects the emergence versus reductionism debate in the philosophy of science – one side simply cannot see the question(s) the other one raises (in this context reductionism the ‘axiomatic’ or ‘obvious’ default truth).

The intellectual problem is, however, one of who has the burden of proof? And for those ‘axiomatically’ in the know they never seemingly ask the very simple question of: “how do I know that assertion of self-evident knowledge or ‘fact’ to be true?”. It’s obvious that society really just ‘reduces’ to individuals and human experience merely ‘reduces’ to bio-chemical reactions and so on. How can anyone possibly think otherwise right?

And, of course, to speak to someone that is not open to the possibility that they might be profoundly confused or wrong about such issues is tiresome and ultimately a waste of time. After all such a character can exchange their slice of ‘axiomatically’ correct views with some other dogmatist (“no my form of reductionism is correct! Why your version is absurd and/or totally crazy mate!” etc.) but for the non-reductionist there’s nothing of interest/value going on within such ‘debates’. Hence returning back to political debates I couldn’t care less about Hayekian liberals arguing with Rawlsian liberals (i.e. the standard fare of Anglo-American political discourse). It conceptually bores me to metaphorical tears.

This is where, for example, Mr. Haller comes to mind (boring people to tears). He is no doubt erudite, reasonably intelligent etc., but he is ‘axiomatically’ certain of a number of dubious ideological tropes. The two main ones are: (1) the wonders of the free-market at all times, in all ways, in all things, and (2) the wonders of Catholic orthodoxy which Mr. Haller, quixotically in my view, asserts are concerned with the ethnic and the politics of entho-communitarianism (or more specifically in Mr. Haller’s case ‘good-old boy’ vulgar racism of a very unsophisticated type).

Of course, we on the ‘other side’ suggest that such ideological tropes might be part of the problem and all we really get back in return is an rhetorical stance that basically boils down to “no that’s impossible” - let alone that his two central ideas themselves might be somewhat incongruous (global capitalism has no regard whatsoever for ethnic or ethical matters/issuses etc., except as another putative money-making opportunity or unwanted restriction on the maximisation of profits/opportunities). The only colour Wall Street and its denizens (of whatever ethnic origin) care about is green and they ain’t bloody environmentalists or ‘deep-greens’.

After a while it gets very boring and pointless to engage with such ‘axiomatically certain’ people. A good conversation is an open-ended exchange without one party pushing their particular idée fixe at every possible juncture. For all his faults Danny (he doesn’t write prose that flows to be sure!) at least gives the sense that he’s on the side of the genuinely open-minded (in the best sense of that term) in that the questions are still undecided and perhaps not even fully formed yet. The map of the problematique is still being drawn, the territory is not fully explored. I’d rather have that type of person on board instead of the type that ‘already’ and by some a-priori insights ‘axiomatically’ knows the answer to ‘everything’ in five (or less) easy and meta-politically irrelevant clichés.

But no Mr. Haller already knows the all answer(s). The ethos of Gordon Gecko/Goldman Sachs Monday to Saturday and a confession or two on Sunday and few Hail Mary’s etc., whilst the Juju man in chief rapes the kids behind the altar. And we the plebs thank him (and his kind) for their moral wisdom, unquestionable righteousness, and guardianship of all that is worthy and good. Sounds massively plausible as the future shape of life in Europe, yes? Perhaps not.

I would suggest the genuinely politically/philosophically interesting part of MR is the ontology project.

It the ‘koyaanisqatsi’ corner of MR.

Other than a rather brilliant film what is koyaanisqatsi?

Ko.yaa.nis.qatsi (from the Hopi language), n 1. Crazy life. 2. Life in turmoil. 3. Life disintegrating. 4. Life out of balance. 5. A state of life that calls for another way of living.

Now perhaps characters like Mr. Haller agree that life is out of balance (in some way) but they are far too superficial in their understanding of the why and how or indeed what the solution (if indeed there is a solution of any sort) is or could be.

The internet is full of half-wits going over the same old shite in virtual echo-chambers: (1) everything bad is the fault of/a conspiracy ran by ‘those people’.; (2) Wasn’t 19th century liberalism/Republicanism (freedom from etc.) simply peachy let’s go back to that.; (3) no let’s all go back to some pre-modern ideal (insert favoured historical period/fantasy as appropriate – King Arthur and his knights, 7th century France, ye olde Englandshire, pre-Socratic Greece, “natural duels” in some pre-civilisational state of being, the noble savage, or whatever.; (4) an enormous circle jerk/wank over Hitler and other regimes of the same ideological origins.; (5) we all ‘need’ to ‘get right’ with God and this or that particular brand of Voodoo. And, of course, all are available in various admixtures too. There are others like Mr. Renner’s quasi-Malthusian “peak oil and environmental catastrophe” will somehow miraculously come to the meta-political rescue as the ultimate deus ex machina!

The best element of MR rejects all of that for the unthinking crap such non-thought so obviously is.

We are the strain that knows there is no going to back to the past as the past. That modernity has certain irreversible consequences for the type of world we do and can inhabit. Just as being a 70 year old man has certain irreversible consequences, that result in the fact that such a man can never live as his 17 year old self ever again. Such as state of being is irrecoverable.

Just as the world in which ‘God’ without question ‘frames’ the horizon of the world as such (in every way imaginable) is irrecoverable. God really is dead in that sense (or course any individual can, in the Kierkegaardian sense, make that leap of faith but no culture collectivelly can – even Islamic culture senses ‘the game is up’ thus radical Islamic is not the birth pains of a new beginning but rather the death throes of a now brittle way of life - Islam as societally ‘foundational’ - in terminal historic decline). But I digress.

Therefore unthinking and bone-headed ‘traditionalism’ or conservatism (theological or otherwise) in the same vain is rejected. Thus the question is what can follow on from this form of liberal-modernity? What type of post-modern regime(s) or way of living is possible? Or in my own case what form can an alternative modernity take?

Can modernity be rescued from its own worst mistakes and blind-spots? Why has modernity been synonymous with the rise of liberalism (as fully understood in its widest and deepest historical sense)? What ontologies are involved in this curious state of affairs?, etc. Why is our picture of the world so subtly yet profoundly distorted and distorting yet so resistant to critique or correction? What micro and macro psychological, philosophical, and phenomenological factors/processes are at play in shaping the modern sensibility and the shape of its character?

And that’s a very complex and serious set of questions to unpack.

Inevitably it’s a multifaceted topic which can’t be grasped in easy half-truths nor spoken about with anything like the certitude displayed by the dogmatic ideologues with (however articulately described) very “easy answers”. So easy that they are non-answers to pseudo-questions.

Or if, for example, zealously understood and ruthlessly enforced Catholic orthodoxy is the answer what the hell is the question? If the ethos of Goldman Sachs is the answer again what the hell is the question?

But MR should be a space where the ‘emergentists’ don’t have to argue against the half-truth and distorted ‘certitudes’ and axiomatic ‘truths’ of the ‘reductionists’. The burden of meta-political proof should be reversed. Then something worthwhile might, with careful nurture, develop and flourish.

Having to argue time and time again against the tired tropes of dogmatic ‘reductionists’ prevents that more important debate for maturing.

So yes Leon, Thorn etc., we all fucking get you. God, Voodoo etc., is ‘essential’ we can’t live without it blah blah blah. The free-market can do no wrong etc. Yes OK everyone knows that’s what you all think.

There really isn’t any need to constantly repeat those points. It’s a higher form of trolling and disrupting the more interesting (and imperfect no doubt) conversations that MR should be having.