|
|
|
The closing of the liberal mind These days my relationship with the moderators of Comment is Free - Matt Seaton’s censorious defenders of the Guardian faithful - is in a bad way. They know someone who means to cause their poor lambs ideological pain is out there. They don’t like it, and they have their knives out. Of course they are right. I don’t log-on to engage with their flock in the spirit of fraternal Semitism and peace to all men and man-hating dykes that they intend. Originally, CiF provided an opportunity to test our arguments against the little clutch of undeniably good minds that frequented it. And one or two profitable and educational exchanges were had, for sure. But the good minds grew weary and the moderators wary. The immoderation began with a noticeable narrowing of the discourse perhaps a year ago. References to the meaning for the English of miscegenation were excised more swiftly. The meaning of minoritisation followed. Lately the notion of ultimate and proximate values has gone too. That and the terms “race-replacement” and “left-racism” are no more than invitations to the trigger-happy guardians of ideological purity. The notion that the English have the same natural right as any other people to pass their ancestral land onto their own children seems to be too unimpeachable to delete. For now. But just this afternoon the perfectly respectable idea that violence in society enters at the most formative level of the common conception of the human, if that conception is partial, was deemed too offensive for the ba-bas. Fifteen minutes of my writer’s life was wasted for nothing. Give them their due, Matt’s boys have become ever more creative in interpreting the house rules to fit their agenda. There are threads on which they memory-hole comments by the dozen, as often as not where the lead article has been ghosted for a government minister. From my experience, the great majority of deletions also result in the ultimate sanction in red just about the comment box: “oh yea, further offence shall ne’er stain this temple of false middle-class virtues. Thou art modded.” (Censorship à la Guardian, by the way, has to take place at the level of what is written rather than the writer because the software does not allow for IP-banning. Which is quite sensible - who hasn’t heard of proxies, after all?) We sinners are meant to take the hint. I know I should. But I’m just not well disposed to being pushed around by a bunch of upstart social engineers and friggin’ foreigners. So I re-register and offend again, perhaps late at night if the thread has not been locked, or just late in its development when the moderator’s sleep is metaphorical. But it isn’t done in hope of an exhilarating intellectual contest. Not anymore. Those days are long gone, and not only because of the control freakery. The debaters themselves, or any worthy of the name, have lost their appetite for the contest. All that exists now of the great army of CiF, once so confident and forthright in its tenets, are some stragglers with Asians for wives or sisters mated to negroes and, of course, the Asians and a negro or two, a quantity of stubborn, sour women not mated to anybody, some useless creatures taking time off from cottageing, and the inevitable, eggregious suckers at the tit of the neo-Marxist state. I can’t even tempt a Jew with chutzpah to try his luck now. They simply curse “anti-Semite” and stalk off to procure the control freaks’ next act of violence against the ideal of “comment” that is “free”. It’s common at CiF for the victims like me to point out the irony in people so given to revulsion at authoritarianism exhibiting the same characteristic themselves. Do they listen? Do they believe in liberty at all anymore? How many of them would concur with the French cultural theorist Paul Verilio when, extrapolating away like mad, he uttered the priceless observation:
It seems to me that the quality of openness (and possibly even openness to further movement along the historical trajectory of liberalism, movement, really, towards Verilio’s lodestar of the New Cosmic Man liberated from all earthly attachment) has evaporated and been replaced with a door-bolting, curtain-drawing New Conservatism. It’s understandable. For the English liberal the future - the real one - is looking unutterably bad. Not only has he not attained to any meaningful new state of liberty, never mind a cosmic one, he is still bound to a lumpen society filled with dratted racists, homophobes, et al. His exhaustion is unmistakable. He has had thirteen years of his party’s control of Westminster … thirteen years in which to explain the “good” he brings. England has tried the cultural perversion and racial transformation he put before it, and there is nothing to suggest that it wants any part of it. The most that the liberal Establishment can claim - and it is a false claim because it is untempered by a statistical assessment of white displacement - is that “racism” has moderated over the Labour years. What about anti-white racism, one asks? Wrong thinking. Ban it Of course, this New Conservative still has the consolation of knowing that the wheel of social engineering turns more slowly than the wheel of political fortune. He still believes that he has acted on a historical scale … that multi-racialism in England is secure, that the war on “intolerance” and “prejudice“, which justifies any excesses committed in its name, has been won. It is this that he is defending. “This is our handiwork,” he says, “and during the many long years in which we liberals will now be divorced from government, no man shall undo it. For the process of change is beyond human agency. It is inevitable, and we are indeed gods.” Well, for gods they are crap debaters, I can tell you that. So then, politically we are at the end of an undeniably momentous era. Intellectually, ideologically and, most crucially, racially, the regnum of the left stands before us in its defensive formation. But experience should tell us that nothing remains the same except human nature itself, which it is our privilege to defend. Liberals cannot hold the centre, for their entire politic is predicated on attack and on movement. What we are seeing, then, may be something more historic and more interesting than a New Conservatism of the left. What we are seeing may be the very edges of a void that can only be filled ideologically from outside the current milieu. If that’s the case it will take time and some bad government by the Cameron cohort before it becomes plain to sight. Meanwhile, I will give Matt Seaton’s bad sports a break, and devote the time and energy I spend on them to reading and thinking about a future for our people sweeter and more attainable than any cosmic codswallop from Frog culture theory. Unless, of course, CiF rediscovers its zest for an English anti-life, in which case the temptation may yet prove too strong and battle will re-commence. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:53 | # First comment timed at 09.04. Banned at 14.43. That’s a good run. But the deletions will now surely flow. 3
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:27 | # As bad as things are here I can still look to England and feel better. Wow. On the link you posted, it leads to this http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/jan/16/osama-ipod-guardian-guide I’ve never been able to get a comment through there (is it closed to actual Americans?), but if I did I would point out that that list is composed of a several non-White thugs who have (or been accused of) committed atrocious crime against humanity and an English politician who, to my knowledge, never purported a single mass slaughter or terrorist attack. Ain’t that racist? I would also inquire of the writer to continue the list by telling us all what’s on the play list of the various muslim clerics there in England who have called for (or celebrated) terrorists attacks. ... 4
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:36 | #
Ahem, that should read perpetrated. .. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:17 | # Dasein, They are a herd of sheep. They need a great deal of confirmation from eachother for their anti-natural Weltanschauung. You will only very rarely encounter them on a racialist thread because they know their positions will be attacked, which they can’t handle. By the same token you will see many racialists invading their threads because they know they can’t be hurt, and can carry the attack into the very heart of darkness - even with the sort of “one hand tied behind the back” moderation that they have to operate under. Notice how much foul-mouthed vileness is spilt on this CiF thread over Nick Griffin, and how freely the insults fly towards folkish. Even allowing for these people being faithists, of course, and especially suggestible, theirs is a sick world. I have been told off in the past for saying so, because some people think it is unhelpful, but being liberal-left is a viral infection, imo. 6
Posted by Guest Lurker on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:48 | #
As an aside, I’ve come to believe that White liberalism is to politics what masochism is to sexuality- a deviance. I can’t figure out whether this is due to religion, or jewish manipulation, or whether this almost feminine masochistic trait in Whites is the result of some sort of psycho-sexual evolutionary maladaptation. It doesn’t seem to exist in any other group. 7
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:55 | # There is something about the monotonic drone that issues from the CiF comments pages that give one a headache. Only occasionally very occasionally is it possible to discern the faint trace of an intellectual discourse taking place beneath the stultifying miasma of dross and facile sloganeering. You seemed to be about to become involved in such a discourse with the gentleman from Yugoslavia when the mods took discretion as the better part of valour and wisely pulled the plug. You never did have the opportunity to post a response to his post at 2:51pm nor that at 3:37pm. I have taken the liberty of reproducing both below, and wonder whether you could make a response at least here. If you are agreeable I will go on CiF and attempt to entice him over here for a further continuation. To give the fellow his due, he did seem unusually civil and was gracious enough to complain about about banning.
OZKT29B at 26 Jan 2010, 2:51PM @ folkish, folkish: There is no “use” involved here. The characteristic is informational. Nativist (but not necessarily nationalist) politics are informed by normalcy, Nature, love and human rights. That is a crafty fudge. Nativist politics take ethnicity as a starting point - this is a choice, which is illustrated by their marginal position in the political discourse. You could alternatively pivot your politics around economics, or universal human rights and equality - but you choose to make ethnicity central, and in an exclusive way. Why? the right of any people to live sovereign and free in its own homeland, and in solitude should it so wish, is so fundamental it has silently informed all European polities in, broadly speaking, the modern age. The right of people to own slaves used to be fundamental. The choice you make in today’s world is whether to make ethnic exclusivity a key component in your world view. You make that choice, evidently. Why? find what is permanent in Man to be highest, and the presumption for permanence is the basis of my politics. As a (very) crude measure, you can take away 100% of what is acquired ... of what is merely plastic ... and the true Man will stand before you. This truth is what we cognise when we love. It might not be a majority by weight, so to speak. But is metal to sand. And I assume what is permanent to man, in this reading, is closely tied up with one particular narrative strand in the development of the modern UK culture. To be indigenous, and English, signifies permanence when all acquired characteristics (such as multiculturalism, foreign influence etc) are stripped away. Why would it not be that ethnicity, language and poltics do not fall away with the rest of what is acquired, leaving the permanent as something essentially, trans-entnically human? kinship and all its consequences as the main point of reference for philosophical investigations. You take a hypothesis as a truth. Is kinship, in this case taken to mean ethnic kinship, the main point of reference? Only if you choose to make it so. Most philosophies are not built on this foundation. Why the exclamation marks around English. I was selectively quoting your previous post. I am not Nick Griffin. Well I did wonder…are you Mark Collett? [Couldn’t resist a titter at that - DD]
@ Folkish, Nativism - the politics of the interests of a people in its own homeland - CANNOT be racist, because self-defence is an unimpeachable moral right. There’s a fatal flaw in that equation - it buys into the idea that self-defence is required because the indigenous English are under attack. They are not, and to think they are only makes sense if you take a rose-tinted view of the past (all white, community minded, rural), and contrast it to the most hysterical interpretation of the present (Islamic, overrun, atomised, urban) and then make the further mistake of thinking that these two simplistic images are the choices we face for the future. Since when are tolerance, freedom of movement and inclusivity not an integral part of the English national character?
Postagestamp / Folkish, you aren’t engaging me any more - you have fallen back on saying I’m not ‘ethnically’ entitled to challenge your views. Must try harder! Mods - you are worse than Alan ‘ban that shit’ Johnson. Let the man speak, we can handle it… 8
Posted by Dasein on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:20 | # I was just about to suggest what Dan’s said above. GW, if it’s to be your, even temporary, swan song over at CiF, why not try to invite some brave souls or Black Knights to continue the party over here? OZKT29B said:
After he’d said:
Father Censor does know best. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:21 | # Dan, To stand any chance of staying on the page, a reply will have to be quite weak. And that applies to content as well as form. Anyway, I guess I’d have offered the Yugoslav gentleman something like this:
10
Posted by Gudmund on Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:38 | # I agree that the guy quoted above is more civil than your average leftist but there is nevertheless something very disingenuous about the way he debates which makes me instantly dislike him. I.e. his inability to admit the evident phenomenon of racial aggression against the English strikes me as either moronic or diabolically dishonest. And his at-first-glance dismissal of racialism as a starting point for society is ridiculous to say the least, historically speaking High Cultures which lost a meaning of ethnicity were on the down slope (i.e. the demographic transformation of late Rome or the negritization of the Islamic caliphate). In that sense he shows he’s bought the leftist narrative hook line and sinker. Instead he asks why not use as a starting point for societies “economics” - why indeed, because in that event we get the impersonal and hostile regimes of the present - or “universal equality and human rights” - absolutely fatuous since there are no transcendent imperatives just as there is not equality among men or races of men. Again it seems we live in different worlds; the leftist in some kind of bizarre mirror-world which knows only that ‘racism’ is the worst of all sins but cannot enumerate why nor honestly debate the merits of a society in which all members are kin because, well…that just wouldn’t be right. It does come down to faith but it’s a strange, distorted and profoundly destructive faith if so and that makes me glad my leftist days are far behind me. 11
Posted by Willy Garrett on Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:26 | # It doesn’t seem to exist in any other group. That’s because God’s Chosen find the other groups useful for now. Their time will come if they ever pose a threat to the Master Race. Neo-liberalism is certainly deviant and the weakness it sprang from has always been with us. What is unique in the last few generations is that the corrective mechanisms that in the past always kicked in have been short circuited. Parasitic infiltration of a being’s mind causing it to kill itself is only faux suicide. 12
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 31 Jan 2010 03:55 | # Advanced Liberalism, itself a dilution of Communism, is a type of religious faith, inasmuch as it relies heavily on Prophecy and sidelines (racial) Science. Also, its adherents have doubtless experienced their own ‘Pilgrims Progress’ - or in this case ‘Gullibles Travels’ - so despite your most admirable efforts, GW, little in the way of Leftist recantation should be expected. 13
Posted by OZKT29B on Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:19 | # Dear guessedworker, Found this while googling my CiF username (yes, I am that sad). Just to address some of your comments above:
Ok, but you decide to make your ethnicity the primary building block for your philosophy. Therefore my question still stands: why? You almost address this with your next comment:
But again the same question rears its head: why do you feel that your ultimate human interests are so closely bound up with your ethnicity or national identity?
I would agree with you if you, or anyone here, can successfully argue that the English, or any European people, are facing an existential threat. (and when I say ‘argue’, I don’t mean ‘repeat’ - show the working out, please) My reading of the situation is this: communication and transport technology has made the world smaller and more interconnected than ever before; this has led to a transnational global culture, which has many benefits (for trade, culture etc.) One of the side effects of this is that the previous national culture, which was defined in large part by its insularity and intrinsic local-ness, recedes in dominance. This, however, is not an existential threat.
I suppose it does imply a threat to ethic distinctiveness (‘genocide’ - far too dramatic. Is it a far-right imperative to put everything in the most hyped-up, alarmist terms possible?) Why do you consider your own interests to be so dictated by ethnic distinctiveness?
Again, very stirring but completely unsupported. To be ‘absolutely precise’, you’d need to clarify how you arrived at that conclusion.
I would be concerned about that if English nativism had any chance of dominating the political mainstream during my children’s lifetime. However, marginal as it is (and if you’re honest with yourself, you know it), Nativism has as much chance of driving the national agenda as Scientology is likely to be declared the state religion.
My preconceptions about the radical right are not the obstacle you are facing here - you struggle when it’s time to move away from vague and emotive ideas like ‘blood’, ‘the people’ etc and attempt to defend your views in a logical manner. 14
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:50 | # I’m not Guessedworker, but, as is my wont, I’ll throw my two cents in.
The answer to that question can be found in the observation of how people actually behave. How do they actually behave? Despite all airy and moralistic protestations to the contrary, people choose to live amongst their own people. As columnist Joe Sobran once wittily put it (paraphrasing): the living and moving patterns of White liberals are indistinguishable from that of the Ku Klux Klan. And likewise, the vast majority of people, not just Whites, choose to marry and produce children with closely genetically related others. Why? Because, and as makes excellent evolutionary sense, we have an innate, evolved affinity for those of our blood. Genetic similarity theory. Google it. But, at an even higher, or more basic, level of analysis, there is life’s ‘purpose’, or if that offends your value neutral fastidiousness too greatly, its function (what it actually does, how it actually behaves), in passing along its genetic material, or the information which that contains. In the human species, the individual is the unit of reproduction, and of course as with life generally, the individual strives to pass along his genetic material, and here the social aspect comes in, also the genetic material of his closely genetically related fellow ethnics. The life interest an individual has in seeing to the genetic continuity of his ethnic group constitute his ethnic genetic interests. See here (if the rest of your questions are not answered after having read that, then I fear you will never understand): 15
Posted by bombkangaroo on Mon, 01 Feb 2010 00:51 | #
It is the one quality of a man beyond which he cannot be reduced. 16
Posted by D Allen on Mon, 01 Feb 2010 01:18 | # Just my answer:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050593/Only-babies-born-England-Wales-white-British.html http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/ etc. Alternatively, you could try switching on your visual sensory apparatus. Bear in mind that we are interested in the useful definition of ‘English’ or ‘European’, not the one that refers to a random assortment of the world’s population that happened to be born here.
‘Cause Pashtuns really love women’s rights, atheism and the gay agenda. My reading is that since the latter half of the 20th century, communication and transport technology has facilitated ethnoracially distant masses flooding into European (predominantly NW European) territories and displacing the Europeans, whilst maintaining ethnoracially homogenous, or largely homogenous, territories of their own.
If ‘why’ means causal factors: evolutionary reasons, upbringing, acculturation, difficult to know for sure. If ‘why’ is meant to suggest that there are subsidiary interests underlying the cause of ethnoracial preservation: well this is false, it is a primary drive.
If ideas like ‘blood’ and ‘the people’ are vague and emotive, then aren’t secondary ideas that rely on these concepts (e.g. the Holocaust, racism), ideas which are cherished by the political mainstream, even more vague and emotive? Is there something vague about this? http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/09/geography-and-genetic-structure-in.html 17
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 Feb 2010 01:39 | # OZKT29B, I am pleased that you had the raw interest to come to enquire of a place of absolute hostility to liberalism - vanity has its uses, apparently. We’ve all googled our thread-handles some time or other, anyway. So ... here you can be told truths that are impossible to formulate in the liberal media, for reasons of its illiberality. Here you need only a question - any germaine question - and you will be answered to the best of our ability. No one will insult you or think of you as morally sub-human. No one will even regard you as an enemy, except in a political sense - and, ultimately, that is not the important thing to us. The important thing is that you are of European - not Jewish - descent, and it is in no way your fault that you have been cultured in a zeitgeist of maximum harm to the European, and never heard an honest word. I know you think your question is valid, perhaps even seminal. But it is not. It is, inevitably, formative and foolish: why do we place our race and ethnicity at the core of our Weltanschauung? It is like saying, “Why do you breath air and not Co2.” It is what we need for life. It is what all peoples need for life. It is how life works. Our philosophy is the philosophy of life. In contrast, liberalism has, by many stops and crooked passages, arrived at the state of being the struggle against life ... for Europeans, at least. To explain that in a systematic and satisfactory manner would take a lot of time, perhaps even years. As of this moment, you have only a cartoon-view of the radical right - which, of course, licences the sense of moral and intellectual inferiority in which you hold us. But nothing you believe about us today, nothing you believe politically period, nothing you value, nothing you have been taught, nothing you have reasoned for yourself ... none of it approaches even close to the naturalness, rootedness and truth of our beliefs. There are some ways to illustrate the divide, it is true. What, for example, is the highest human interest by your beliefs? All of us routinely spend an awful lot of time trying to drag answers out of people like you, trying to drag you out of your received ideas, out of your perceived political personnas and towards truth and knowledge. It is difficult. The understanding that liberalism - one’s whole political life - is a way of violence and harm in complete contradistinction to what you have always thought, and is based on directed lies ... that understanding is not easy to grow. If you have the courage and committment to stick around here you will slowly piece it all together for yourself - and that, perhaps, is the only real way to learn. I wish you luck. 18
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 01 Feb 2010 02:15 | # The care and welfare of White indigenous people is never featured among the myriad, Thirdworldist, Guardianesque concerns of the childish liberal mind. Instead, liberalism’s narcoleptic votaries are led quietly into the barren political defile of a multiculturalist fantasy as bizarre and unnatural as it is suicidal and insane. 19
Posted by Bill on Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:14 | # OZKT29B on January 31, 2010, 10:19 PM
As I see it, it’s like asking why do parents prioritise their concerns for the their offspring above above those of the other. This doesn’t mean the parents hate the other, or doesn’t care, it’s just the way it is. Nation and ethnicity to the nationalist is family. Simple as that. It’s called the natural way of things, same as birth and death, something that liberals seem to deny or wish to re-engineer to fit their world view. The future of British whites is that of the British red squirrel. 20
Posted by SueDonym on Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:26 | # Hello to all I’m OZ (insetrandomtext)‘s parter. White British (whatever that means)- Grandfather was a miner. 21
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:28 | # As a relatively recent entrant from the Balkans (very likely a refugee, perhaps Muslim), OZ is statistically very unlikely to be a keen advocate for ethno-nationalism. Having escaped from one multicultural hellhole where ethnic strife was the norm it is entirely understandable - and from his point of view totally rational - to be concerned that his new adopted homeland might in time come to resemble his own ancestral one. Hence the atavistic fears about and aversion to ‘nativism’ and ethnocentrism. It is simply a matter of self-interest that has propelled him, like all immigrants, into the liberal fold. It would be absurd to expect that he would ever be able to cast off that self-interest and to review the demographic transformation of Britain as would a native Briton. From his point of view it is only this continuing metamorphosis into a bladerunneresque, multiracial and polyglot Nowhereland that will prevent his new home from coming to resemble his old. The irony is that the truth lies exactly opposite, as history succinctly demonstrates. 22
Posted by OZKT29B on Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:45 | # Dear all, Thank you all for your replies. Firstly let me clear up any misconceptions you may have about me. I do not hold you as inferior, nor am I here to condescend or stereotype you. I am primarily interested in how my ideas about the world, as it is and as it should be, stack up against yours. Currently the two would appear to be diametrically opposed; however, these things should never be fixed in stone. I am prepared to be wrong, if you are able to demonstrate it to my satisfaction. I am not, or ever have been, a refugee or a Muslim. The part of the Balkans I came from is riven with deep ethnic and racial fault lines - however, it never boiled over into all-out conflict. I have been in England since the age of 11, through school and university and into work, always surrounded by English people. I am telling you all this not to network, but to show you why I am interested in questions of ethnicity and nationality. I am not afraid, genuinely not in my darkest moments, that this country will become overwhelmingly hostile to people of foreign birth or origin. That has never been my experience in all my time here, but (personal experience never being a satisfactory argument) I can also see that it plays an extremely marginal role in the general political discourse. That’s why the BNP have never so much as come close to a Westminster seat. Ok, that said I will address some of the replies you have kindly posted above. My questions were all variants of the same essential question: why do you choose to make ethnicity the primary driver for your world-view, philosophy and politics? Your answers superficially vary, but can broadly be reduced to one notion:
Innate, primary, natural, irreducible - these are terms to describe something which you essentially can’t describe, not down to its fundamental building blocks. If you cannot reduce it and examine the underlying components, how can you be sure that it’s sound, and not hollow? This is in fact comparable to a religious belief. To a devout Christian, the notion that ‘Jesus loves them’ is innate, primary, irreducible - the wellspring of their other ideas and the framework for their interaction with the world. However if you attempt a rationalist approach to the notion, you deduce that Jesus was most likely a historical figure conceived in the traditional way, who died nearly 2000 years ago and therefore is unable to ‘love’ anyone living in the present. A devout Christian would say that religious thought is incompatible with rational enquiry, and his love for, and from, Jesus is not subject to the same scrutiny. And that is indeed a prerogative of the devoutly religious - not, however, of a political ideology. I am prepared to put my money where my mouth is and defend my political, ideological and philosophical positions on the terrain of reasonable, deductive, faith-free argument. If you undermine my position I’m prepared to concede and amend it accordingly. So, if your ethnocentrism is indeed based on an article of faith, as it appears, then really we have already reached our terminus, beyond which reason cannot penetrate. As we are only getting started, I sincerely hope that this is not the case - therefore, at the risk of sounding like a repetitive bore, my original question still stands - why do you choose to make ethnicity the primary driver for your world-view, philosophy and politics? Guessedworker - you say that ‘to explain that in a systematic and satisfactory manner would take a lot of time’ - that is what I came here for. If it isn’t explained in a systematic and satisfactory manner, convention would suggest that I remain standing and you are excusing yourself from the table. @bombkangaroo - ‘...but his interest in the indefinite continuation of his genes, just like every other living creature, cannot be removed from him, he cannot be reduced further.’ I agree, but I would limit that drive towards continuation to a person’s own offspring, as does any serious evolutionary biologist. It takes a creative, and entirely unsupported, leap to wed this (undoubtedly true) notion to a radical-right ideology. I would contend that you have allowed yourself to join the two ideas on the strength of your faith in the ‘irreducible ethnic affinity’. Lastly, and as an aside to anyone here who’ll bite, where do you all stand on old-fashioned racism, of the unreconstructed, hate-filled variety? I know that Griffin has been tireless in promoting the ‘acceptable’ face of the far-right, all about identity and mutual respect between races, however I note in Guessedworker’s head article on this page that he doesn’t shy away from implacably old-fashioned terms like ‘negro’, and later on he expresses relief that I am not Jewish. Am I to conclude that amongst the sincere desire to protect the indigenous British from ethnic genocide there is an undercurrent of racial superiority, and old-fashioned racial hatred? OZK 23
Posted by vo on Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:47 | # “Can you tell a Negro from a white man, Sue Donym, or do you have difficulty with that?” sad to say, I have difficulty with that, yet with the help of MR, I’m trying to see the simplicity.
....i’ve been calmly advised both from professional and personal acquaintances not to overly analyze, for it’s causing me, and others, distress. This may be my last post at MR, but will enjoy sometimes reading. Thanks Fred. And good luck SuDonym! 24
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:34 | #
That is good, as I just could not take it if you did.
“Network” he says? Your attempt at discourse is so breezy and lite I fear you just might float away.
No, no, the fact that the UK has been flooded by non-White immigrants in recent decades is of no concern to anyone, and therefore never discussed. Lite n’ breezy.
And of course that wouldn’t have anything to do with the mindless regurgitation of rankest boilerplate such as this from Lite n’ Breezy, now would it:
What, just like the cookies grandma used to bake? Do you hum and move your body in rhythm whilst reciting your cant? 25
Posted by OZKT29B on Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:40 | # Guessedworker, Obviously no one can be held accountable for the behaviour of their guests, however the below, from your opening salvo, sets lofty goals:
Therefore I thought I would rise to the challenge, as it were, only to find that the minds have grown weary on Majority Rights. How else can you explain boneheaded replies like the below gems from dasein:
erm, right.
Show me where I have espoused an anti-white agenda.
But I do, Dasein- so what am I to make of your three priceless one liners? 26
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:40 | #
“Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities…The same incidents, the same acts, the same system of government, affect them in different ways; and each fears more injury to itself from the other nationalities than from the common arbiter, the state.” 27
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:54 | #
Dude, you do realize that most people in fact do choose to associate with people of their own race, don’t you? If you don’t, then I must strongly suspect that you live in a cave. Why not put your prissy little sensibilities to the side and engage with that one key observation? And ask yourself, just why is that? That is, if you are indeed capable of processing information at the level of content and not merely form. 28
Posted by SueDonym on Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:03 | # Firstly I will take umbrage to the, frankly, patronising address of ‘Miss’. But ho hum, Right Wing politics are generally misogynistic. I will allow you that one. Bear with me with the boring specifics of my family - Maternal grandfather, a Miner from the age of 11 until retirement, Paternal Grandfather an Architect for the local council for most of his working life. From this classic British family, one of my family has married a Japanese Woman and had a child, One married a Nigerian, had three children , One is engaged to a Spanish Woman, and one is happily Married with a child to a Scot (I assume you would tar Scots and Welsh with the same brush you do other ‘foreigners’ ) Another happily married to a Welsh Woman. I will forever remember being at a family wedding and my Gran describing the area as ‘Paki Alley’. How we laughed (but inwardly cringed),as we knew it was a misguided and outdated sentiment. Despite these racist beliefs my Gran embraced and loved all of her ‘in laws’ and I truly believe she was just carrying on things she had heard when young. In no way do I think she hated anyone of a different ethnicity. I wonder how you can justify your beliefs and worry you may pass them onto your children? 29
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:11 | #
The sum of your ‘logic’, it ceased to be fashionable. Mentally…castrated…drones. I can see the wheels turning your heads, and it ain’t hard. 30
Posted by SueDonym on Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:12 | # @capitainchaos & desmond I said before that a far-right ideology seems to me to be like a religious belief. As your conversation before I came on was about the Comment is Free site, I assume you have lurked there in the past - have you seen what happens when a religious person comes on and someone prods at their basic beliefs? They get testy, defensive, they snap back with one or two lines, but what they never do is meet your argument head-on. This is because they don’t have an argument of their own, and feel uncomfortable if you poke at the vacuum at the heart of their Weltanschauung. In other words, exactly what you two have done - you are proving my hypothesis has legs. I’ll outline and defend any aspect of my ‘prissy little sensibilities’ you care to name… 31
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:13 | #
You are unlikely to progress very far here spouting such nonsense nor in assuming that the people who contribute here fall within the rubric of what you term ‘Right Wing politics’. We are way, way beyond what you might perceive as ‘politics’, right-wing or otherwise. Something quite new is afoot. As for ‘foreigners, take it as a point of departure that the fault-line on MR lies between those of European descent and others. 32
Posted by OZKT29B on Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:14 | # sorry the above was not from SueDonym, but you may have gathered that… 33
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:33 | #
I speak English, not the Jewish extended-phenotype dialect of English.
Speaking for myself, what I oppose is government-enforced race-replacement of the traditional British race or collection of races. Race-replacement is always a question of numbers, never of individuals: an Englishwoman marrying a Nigerian Negro is no business of mine and I have no opinion of it other than to wish the couple every blessing for a happy, successful life together. But inappropriate numbers of Nigerian Negroes entering Britain are my business because they threaten to race-replace Brits. As a white man I have an interest in opposing that, especially when it’s forced on an unconsulted, unwilling population by a corrupt, usurped, hostile government.
Which ones? 34
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:36 | #
I think you’ll find very little such hatred expressed on this forum, unless you view expressions of dismay at and resistance to the process of demographic transformation that is currently underway within the Eurosphere as ‘old-fashioned racial hatred’. Some here would even claim that that very process itself is the real manifestation of racial hatred, since it seeks to deny the British and other Europeans their own, unique identity. I dare say that as a card-carrying liberal you wpould be very supportive of the right of the ethnic Tibetans - perhaps the Palestinians also - to resist foreign incursions into their ancestral tribal lands. Are they being old fashioned racists in taking such a stance? If not, then how is the BNP any different? But to return to your own background, if it’s not being too bold, what were the circumstances of your arrival in the UK in the early 90s? You state your family were not refugees, but there would have been very few other alternative avenues for legal immigration from the former Yugoslavia at that time. So, how did you come to be here? 35
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:40 | #
That is your assumption, but is it fact? And could it not also be a fact that your own anti-racist beliefs are faithist in character? But let us get to the bottom of that. We accomplish that by your answering this question, directly, go on, do it, here it is, again: Why is it that most people in fact do choose to associate with people of their own race? If you refuse to respond to that question directly there is nothing left to say. 36
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:45 | #
J.S Mill, a far-right ideologue? Here it is more simply. Multiculturalism denies free institutions. It’s not religious because it is a political ideology that is potentially falsifiable. Ball’s in your court. Let’s play. 37
Posted by Armor on Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:46 | # ” far-right ideology “ Right-wing and far-right are boo-words, just like “racist”. (I think GW also used the phrase “radical right” earlier in this thread). SueDonym: “one of my family has married a Japanese Woman and had a child, One married a Nigerian, had three children” Normal white people wish their country would stay white. You and your family would rather marry non-whites. The obvious solution is for your family to move to Brazil or Africa. There’s no need for conflict here. 38
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:55 | # This is the question that needs to be answered, this is the question that brings the issue to its head, all else for our purposes here is superfluous horseshit, answer the damned question:
39
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 Feb 2010 02:01 | # OZKT29B, Thank you for taking the trouble to explain yourself and your relation to the Balkan narrative of ethno-nationalism. I appreciate the fact that you appreciate the fact ... I am not going to answer here for my friends. They can all speak of our endeavour from their lights. So the following is the start, I hope of an interesting conversation between you and me. I certainly appreciate the fact that someone capable from the world of CiF is willing to debate me. I have grown very tired of the Marxist jailbait. OK, let’s go. I read somewhere - perhaps you’ve heard it, too - that it takes five years to change a man’s mind. For us, that means that the influences of a philosophy - or, perhaps, politic - different from the one that formed us all individually from childhood take a long time to produce effects in the parts of the brain where we do our thinking and feeling. Everyone who frequents this or other sites like it has been through this process and experienced these effects. Not a few of us came from the political left. In one way or another, all of us absorbed the liberal zeitgeist without even knowing it, and without ever questioning its psychological droite de seigneur. We do now, though. My purpose is to make you question the unconscious manner in which you absorbed all your present thinking. I hope it will be possible to engage you long enough to make at least a firm gesture in that direction. For the moment, though, I will clear away some of the present thoughts you have about us (notwithstanding the fact that the terms of the debate on the Nationalism Question which goes back and forth here are presently unknown to you). You write: Innate, primary, natural, irreducible - these are terms to describe something which you essentially can’t describe, not down to its fundamental building blocks. Now, if you will direct your attention to the top of the side-bar, just below the Venus, you will see there are two links titled “Ethnic genetic interests” and “EGI.pdf”. These will provide you with an account of the “fundamental building blocks” of ethnocentrism. If you have any questions about them, either or both Dasein and D Allen will be no doubt be glad to answer. When you are satisfied that there is a case founded in kinship and shared distinctive genes, and this case is quantifiable, you ought to be willing to set aside the charge of “religion”. I am prepared to put my money where my mouth is and defend my political, ideological and philosophical positions on the terrain of reasonable, deductive, faith-free argument. Now, I see you spend even more time mistakenly labelling our ideas as faith-based. If you have a proper look around the site you should be able to put that to rest. Here, for example, are some observations of my own. They form part of a foreground to a major effort that we planning here. I do not believe that you will find them “religious”: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/what_it_is_to_be_human_part_1/ http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/what_it_is_to_be_human_part_2/ On language, Dasein correctly explained that we do not use the language of our political foes, which is a narrowing and prescriptive language not intended for free men but for mental slaves. We are a site for hardcore nationalist thinkers, hosted in a country where freedom of expression is still guaranteed. A negro is a negro to us, not a “black”. An Aboriginal Australian is black. A low-caste southern Indian may be black. We do not mean them when we speak of the Negroid race, and we don’t want to be bothered with making the distinctions between “Sub-Saharan African” and American or other diaspore Africans. Besides it’s five syllables too many for non-technical reference. As to Jews, you certainly have an education in store if you find it necessary to object to my separation of them from our own race. And you will certainly get it as regards the JQ if you stick around. Stick around. 40
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:42 | # Once in a while we experience a moment so sublime we must pause and take notice. One such I present to you here, it is a preview of what we can expect once Auntie Semite comes to lodge permanently with our dimmer brethren on the left side of the bell curve. I’m sure we are all familiar by now with the pyrotechnics that ensued when Jew Sam Rubin questioned Mel Gibson regarding Gibson’s shining moment of liquor-induced truth-telling. Here, for your reading pleasure, are comments in response to the Gibson interview, I have excerpted only the most articulate and insightful of the lot: blacksunrevival said:
WhereEaglesDareWWII said:
Pissoffyowpunk said:
SouthBoston88 said:
vladmir38 said:
bigbrother1994 said:
PolarBearMauler said:
gnicksixty9ine said:
BrutalDefiance148877 said:
And, as if this crown needed a jewel, here it is regardless, apparently from the Land of Tea and Scones:
LOL! 41
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:59 | # Mel, son of Gib and his Passion:
42
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:24 | # Give me a break, Oxy could not possibly be drifting more in the miasma of his own deracination and innate superficiality than if he were to suck on a canister of helium. So then, the way to pin him down as to facilitate a mental breakthrough for him (if that is even possible) is to flood him with a counter-narrative of abstract jargon-laden verbiage? Yeah, sure. 43
Posted by bombkangaroo on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:43 | #
The genes are irreducible because they are the fundamental building blocks, they are life. They are what defines an organism. While a Christian might describe their faith that Jesus/God loves them as irreducible, that does not make it so. Genes however are tangible, they can be observed and tested. That they exist, and that they differentiate the various peoples of the world is an objective fact. There is no room for faith or interperetation, we are our genes. Everything else is born of experience, and is therefore transient, it dies with the particular organism, while the genes, successfully passed onto future generations may survive indefinitely. Any philosophy predicated on transient concepts or values will be transient itself. A philosophy that results in its own abandonment by destroying those who subscribe to it is transient in the extreme, and therefore worthless. 44
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:00 | # Dan, Dasein, I accept that our friend will carry some internal consequences of all that Balkan ethnic tension, and he will be only too aware of his difference in England, and that will reflect in his pursuit of his own EGI (ie, hostility to native ethnic interests). All that is a given. But we are not so over-subscribed with intelligent liberal interlocuters that we can pass up this one. Let us engage in an open spirit and see where it takes us. Of course, for that to happen, Oxy has to return. 45
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:03 | # Fair enough, GW. The floor is yours if he returns. 46
Posted by danielj on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:30 | # Firstly I will take umbrage to the, frankly, patronising address of ‘Miss’. But ho hum, Right Wing politics are generally misogynistic. I will allow you that one. Nature herself is clearly misogynistic as well in giving definitive survival advantage to strong, youthful men, unencumbered by the baggage of women and children. All men that are so burdened, travel heavily through the world at a distinct disadvantage. The fact that you are capable of perceiving a misogynistic slight in such an innocuous term speaks volumes about you. Additionally, the use of term is more likely indicative of an antipathy to youth in general, rather than misogyny, in the person using the term. Picture a disapproving elder wagging a finger instead of a fueled up perpetrator of psycho spiritual violence against women. 47
Posted by Guest Lurker on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:32 | #
Then you’re not very perceptive. There’s a huge difference between religion and instinct, and as other posters noted above, it is liberalism which has every hallmark of a religious faith at odds with human nature. I recall a poster on another board, I think it was VNN, who once wrote, “liberalism is moral outrage at reality.” That sums it up well. 48
Posted by Guest Lurker on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:41 | # As far as this OZK individual possibly being Macedonian, he would be a real oddball by their standards. People like Bulgarians and Macedonians, who languished under cruel Ottoman rule for 5 centuries yet obstinately retained their identity, are no strangers to the merits of nationalism. The concept definitely doesn’t have to be explained to them like it does to OZK. However, as someone else pointed out, by virtue of being an immigrant, he will of necessity see things from a viewpoint of self-interest, and no amount of debate would change that. If a tapeworm were a sentient being, it too would rationalize its existence and why it should be allowed to enter and live off of the host and try to undermine any arguments to the contrary. 49
Posted by OZKT29B on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:43 | # GW We appear to have many preconceptions to clear up - you refer to the ‘unconscious manner’ in which I absorbed all my present thinking. You are perpetuating the narrative that any thought that isn’t extremely marginal is, in fact, sheep-like and unconscious. Perhaps certain ideas are more mainstream than others not because of some leftist conspiracy but because they have been tested more, and for longer, and been found to stand? Conversely, perhaps marginal thought has its marginal status not because it’s a politically inconvenient truth, or because the leftists have suppressed it, but instead because it too has been widely tested and found lacking? No matter, to assist you in your task to rid me of received wisdom perhaps I could briefly outline my positions on some current issues and if you want to drill down further into any specific point you could let me know. I’ll then try to demonstrate that most of my opinions have been arrived at via rational enquiry and thought rather than cultural osmosis. You may also find that none of them are built on an article of faith - something that is yet to be demonstrated about your own views. I think that we should have never gone to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we should now stay away from the argument with Iran; that prostitution and class C drugs should be legalised and regulated; that the UK should have unfettered EU-wide immigration but should operate a points system for those outside the Euro-zone; that, long term, Britain’s future is better served as a part of a Federal Europe; that euthanasia should be allowed but tightly controlled; that free market economics are a good thing, but that they should be counter-balanced with more regulation and higher taxation; that the welfare state, overall, improves everyone’s quality of life; that not all the World’s cultures have equal merit, and that cultural relativism muddles reality; that religion is, overall, a negative influence on the world; that climate change should be higher on the national agenda; that the row over MP’s expenses was a media feeding frenzy with no substance. Some of my views may converge with yours and many will not - however, as we continue, arbitrary labels like ‘radical right’ and ‘centre-left’ become inadequate. In response to my question as to why you place ethnicity at the centre of your worldview, you directed me to Salter’s ‘Ethnic Genetic Interests’ article. Having read it, I am of the view that the author also takes ethnocentricity as an irreducible article of faith. Here’s some thoughts in support of that reading: First and foremost, the extrapolation from the human need to perpetuate genes at an individual level to a familial and finally ethnic level is completely unsupported. Dawkins and Hamilton are quoted for the parts that can be weaved into the author’s argument, but then he discards them and jumps off by himself into assuming the centrality of the ‘ethny’ in the perpetuation of genes. He goes on to state that it ‘has been long known from cross-cultural comparisons that all hunter-gatherer societies defend their territories against incursions by neighbours’. From this he posits that modern human societies are also driven by the same need - again this is unsupported. The prehistoric humans lived in a far simpler world than we do today – they also considered clubbing to death to be a perfectly reasonable method to resolve conflict. I assume the author wouldn’t suggest that we do the same today? Salter’s thoughts on carrying capacity completely disregard he fact that the UK is nowhere near reaching the limit of that capacity, not financially, not spatially, not in any sense. On current trends, we are more likely to be flooded as a result of climate change than we are at risk of reaching the carrying capacity. He also makes an unsupported leap in tying Hardin’s dispassionate analysis to his own ethnocentric agenda. He later states that ‘the genetic distance between modern ethnies is often so great that it is visible in racial differences of skin color, physiognomy, and body proportions.’ In fact, the genetic distance between races is so infinitesimally small as to be completely negligible. What genetic distance there is, moreover, cannot easily be divided into races – it’s a gradual spread through the world, which indicates the movement and mixing of peoples that historically evolved in tandem. The concept of there being 4 or 5 different races is entirely based on physical traits, and is political rather than fundamental in nature. Therefore it seems to me that Frank Salter, much like you gents, takes ethnocentricity as a starting point without bothering to question it. In the context of my theory that it’s akin to a religious belief, Salter is like the equivalent of an intelligent design theorist – he has the same desire to take known facts, and weld them forcibly to a preordained worldview in the hope that the legitimacy of the facts he appropriates from others will rub off on his unsupported beliefs. I will address the questions surrounding terminology, and your thoughts on what it is to be human, tomorrow. Before I go though, I just want to clarify what I generally consider to be a satisfactory argument. This may make it easier to address my one question in a manner which will finally put it to rest, so we can move on to the specifics of the ethnocentric view of the world. I’ll do this by reducing one of my own views from the list above, so you can see how it’s built. I said that I believe Britain’s future will be best served if it was a part of a Federal Europe. This is because I anticipate that one of the foremost concerns of the next 3 or 4 generations will be the allocation of scarce natural resources. I further think that on present models the future political landscape will be dominated by much larger entities, such as China, India, Brazil, the USA and blocs of African, middle eastern and Latin American countries. We already see this take shape at global summits – because together, smaller entities that individually would have no clout can wield negotiating power. The UK is today one such nonentity when set against China or the US. For that reason, as part of a Federal Europe we will be better placed to negotiate and conduct business, which will in turn improve the quality of life in the UK by raising incomes, securing resources etc. As my family are UK based, I am working on the assumption that they still will be in 4 generations or so – therefore, I surmise that the welfare and security of my own descendants will be better served if the UK was part of a larger bloc. It’s this sort of breakdown I am looking for when I ask that you explain to me how you arrived at ethnocentricity as your central concept. Under those criteria, I think you’ll agree that this has not yet been achieved. Indeed it seems to me that your first response was in fact your best and most honest – that the idea is irreducible, a ‘gut feeling’. The problem with gut feelings is that you cannot rely on them, they are by definition unknowable, and it certainly doesn’t seem advisable to build an entire philosophy on them. OZK 50
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 03:33 | #
Now listen to me Oxy, recall the question that I’ve been harping for you to focus on, and ask yourself, isn’t this really the question you also wish us to address, here it is again:
You see, if you confess, per your own experience that White liberals such as yourself choose to associate with fellow Whites despite the fact that according to your moral beliefs the race of the person does not matter, only the personal qualities of the individual, then you are acting in a way that contradictions your professed beliefs. That is powerful evidence which militates against the contention that ethnocentric behavior is merely a matter of custom, or merely a matter of faith, and should I think tend one to the conclusion that it is the ethnocentric behavior you observe and in fact engage in yourself which is an evolved tendency, and that your liberal moral beliefs are in fact faithist and go against the grain of the way people usually behave. Do you see the consequences that flow from that? It is indeed force that will be needed to keep genetically diverse peoples together, and not force that will be needed to keep them apart. They pretty well wish to go their own way anyway. And consistent with that, in the real world, it is your allegedly moral beliefs that will actually produce immoral outcomes. Can you follow along with that? If you cannot first look to your own experience for verification of the truth of what we are saying then the mental logjam you experience in the form of epistemological quibbles will not be broken. 51
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 03:43 | # Cap’n -I’d like to suggest that we might have a more fruitful dialogue if we allow GW a clear run at this one in the first instance. If there is anything left to chew on when he’s finished then we can all collectively pile on. Unless of course that is GW would wish to subcontract sub-themes to others, then I’d certainly be up for carrying capacity and/or Federal Europe. But for now let’s just step back and hold the coats eh? 52
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 04:01 | # Dare, if I am not dead-center on-the-money in proposing the precise method by which a meeting of the minds can be achieved then I will eat a tin can (no, not really, but you get the picture). Say one thing, Oxy breezes by it, and asks you to address another, the goal posts keep shifting. Whatever. The floor is yours, GW. 53
Posted by danielj on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:04 | # Say one thing, Oxy breezes by it, and asks you to address another, the goal posts keep shifting. Whatever. The floor is yours, GW. Indeed. The way the initial challenge was issued could lead to some confusion as well. Race, although it is ‘fundamental’ to all the systems of rationality that regular commenters here hold, is sometimes only one star in a constellation of many other fundamentals. It is “basic” because of the simple fact that political action is possible when acting at or near the racial “level” and when we take said race to be synonymous with the nation. Ethnonationalism is enthnopolitics. Our interlocutor wants to turn that into a crude caricature. He subtly asserts that if an ethnonationalist philosopher sits down to think about epistemology that the topic of race rears its unruly head and breaks into our thinking, disabling us and distracting us. He accuses us of conflating the immediate nuclear family and the extended family that comprises the race. I mean, I can do algebra without thinking race. Unless of course that is GW would wish to subcontract sub-themes to others, then I’d certainly be up for carrying capacity and/or Federal Europe. I will of course, defend the rationality of the Christian religion and special creation if it comes to it. 54
Posted by Bill on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:50 | # When nationalists venture to opine the liberal left, a central tenet is the almost total conviction the left are hardwired disconnected from reality, which immediately propels them (nationalists) into a world to which they are not privy. The chaos of postmodernism. Insanity is a word that readily enters their vocabulary, you can see it everywhere. Political correctness gone mad, relativism, victimology, mass immigration, carrying capacity, (70 million, 100 million. 200 million?) Resource sustainability, employment provision, welfare state provision, infinite growth in a finite world, population growth and much more. This is the left’s reality. So much more and so little time. Off the top of my head. There is no way the world can continue living the way we are. I would like a glimpse of your world, especially of Britain in a hundred years time, will our civilisation still be recognisable? I haven’t seen a reply (I may have missed it) to CC’s question. Do you accept there is such a phenomena as White Flight? Why is it racist for whites to express a wish for survival, for themselves and their offspring (race.)? How can a leftist mentally function in a world as it is and not as they would wish? Got to go. 55
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:17 | #
Just what would you consider an honest debater to be, Dasein? A man who comes to the table utterly free of any emotional attachment to the ideas and way of viewing the world in which he has been socialized to invest with positive sentiment all his life? No such thing. That is why, in most cases, it is less like programing a computer than it is breaking a horse to the saddle. I think you will notice if you will review Oxy’s initial comments a tone of mild haughtiness which is obvious would act as an emotional block to processing the content of the information dispensed to him by us. Which is why I started in immediately with some lite ridicule to chasten him and remove that emotional block. Less like a computer, more like a horse, you know, with emotions.
And yet you would be arguing those positions from the perspective of the ethnic interests of Europeans, and Oxy has not yet accepted the legitimacy of that concept. All the time, all the effort you would put in, and he would merely dismiss it as biased analysis per your ‘racism’ which he (haughtily - yes, the all important emotional orientation to the subject matter that effects how he processes said) would dismiss as a product of your alleged ‘faith’ (your ‘racism’). What is more, he could probably find other analysis of the same subject matter conveniently on the Internet by professional academics which came to different conclusions than the studies/analyses you would cite. You would then challenge him to bore ever deeper into the technical nitty gritty, his head would begin to swim, his old haughtiness would begin to kick back in, he would make an appeal to authority of the ‘superior’ credentials of the men who conducted the studies that tend to compliment his world view, and at the last he would again make the accusation of faith. So what breaks the logjam then? Is he going to go out into the world and learn all the necessary techniques to conduct all the requisite studies himself according to the proper methodology so he could truly know, leaving no doubt in his mind, what is actually true? Of course not! So, again, we are back to the epistemological question, and for him, necessarily, that is rooted in his own powers of observation. Which is why I pressed upon him to examine the patterns he sees in his own life and see if they just don’t jibe with our interpretations of said. I dare say, all modesty aside, the above is a rock solid analysis, and challenge anyone to dent it, even one scintilla’s worth. Btw, I consider this to be a sidebar discussion, and not an attempt to reclaim the floor. 56
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:28 | #
Yes, Bill! That emotional block it the thing! 57
Posted by D Allen on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:53 | #
http://lis.epfl.ch/~markus/References/Hamilton75.pdf This paper written by Hamilton in 1975 explicitly discusses kinship in ethnic groups, in a similar vein to Salter (although he is predominantly concerned with the evolution of nepotistic behvaviour); for example look at pages 339-340.
You’re arguing with esteemed population geneticist Henry Harpending there: http://www.springerlink.com/content/qk48g6159758n06m/ For a alternative perspective, take this recent paper: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/09/is-homo-sapiens-polytypic.html The point about variation being gradual rather than clustered is one matter, but in terms of the magnitude of differences you are wrong.
I could dispute this, but it’s unnecessary because Salter’s work doesn’t discuss or rely upon this point; it’s perfectly compatible with total clinality. If you look at one of the pictures from his article on this site,
How does one support a ‘belief’ (actually, a basic preference)? Could you not say the same about someone who takes equality as a starting point? There can be ultimately no rational appraisal of fundamental preferences – to quote Hume, “Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger” – so expecting someone to ‘support’ their preferences, beyond the possibility that certain of their preferences might conflict with others, is outside the bounds of ideal discourse.
So your secondary political opinion about Britain’s future builds upon your primary preference that your descendants prosper in comparison to other future humans. This reveals a concern for familial genetic interests, interestingly (since you are unlikely to have a personal connection to your 4th generation descendants). Would you be happy to defend the primary preference, which is not at all unlike our own (except that it arbitrarily excludes the broader spectrum of your genetic legacy), or is it merely an assumption that you carry to any debate? 58
Posted by Bill on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:24 | #
I take it you have sublibinally accepted that a future white Britain will disapear, being supplanted by the other. For how else in your mind could you be so sure that British navitism will not become dominant in the future. Only in a future majority multi racial Britain with a dwindling indigenous* minority can you be assured of a Britain without the British. *Indigenous British. Hmm! No such thing according to the left. Eh! Hang on! Isn’t that an absolute. British whites are being engineered into a minority as we speak, (2050?) Well within the lifetime of your children. I take it you are cool with your offspring being engineered (legislated) into the margins and being discriminated against with affirmative action. White males have simply been chosen by the left as the new bourgoisee. White males have been earmarked for the chop by their own elites. The programme is well under way, or had you not noticed. PS. Always assuming you are a white male of course - Very dodgy making assumptions on the ‘net. 59
Posted by D Allen on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:39 | #
Bill, he is one of the others (Balkans descent). 60
Posted by Bill on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:17 | # Thanks for that. Makes sense. (Got to put my ‘L’ plates back on.) 61
Posted by Irish Anti-Commie on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:27 | #
The genetic difference is not negligible enough that they are not noticed in physical traits. These physical traits are correlated to geographic origin and inherited genetically. This is why we can tell a Chinese apart from a Swede and a Swede apart from a Congolese. If you can’t tell the difference between a Chinese, a Swede and a Congolese you must be blind and deaf. Humans share 99% of the same genetic code with chimpanzees. Is the 1% difference ‘negligible’ too? 62
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:28 | #
At what cost? Salter argues, in On Genetic Interests p. 197, that the Leviathan will not secure citizens’ freedom. The cost of enforcing contracts, distribution programmes, building collective goods, levels of public altruism and cooperation, greater democracy, less corruption, higher productivity, accelerated social and economic capital formation as well as economic growth are all enhanced by an homogeneous nation state. The Federal Europe concept is an assertion of belief, with no cost based analysis, and appears religious in nature. 63
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:49 | #
But Oxy is not even to the point where he gives a damn if his descendants are White and not mongrels. Oops.
So what’s he going to say then? Oh, yeah, one preference is as good as another. Drats.
Desmond is closer to the mark, by attempting to show Oxy that his moral beliefs will in fact not deliver consequences that he considers moral and in his self-interest. But we already know that Oxy rejects Salter as highfalutin faithist horseshit. So wide of the target again. Where is the bulls-eye? To get Oxy to consult his own life experience to the effect that he will acknowledge that ‘birds of a feather flock together’. Having done that, the door will perhaps be open in his mind to asking why that is, but not before. 64
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:07 | # In the absence of data, morality demands the precautionary principle.
66
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:42 | # Brings to mind the “Brimelow Question”:
67
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:52 | # ^ Re: the “Brimelow Question”: That was in response to Desmond’s post. 68
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:53 | # Why am I always right? A blessing and a curse. 69
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:53 | #
And indeed if it does not work, it should be incumbent upon the moral actor to accept that there should be a penalty for harm imposed upon the ecology. 70
Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:20 | # We are filled with admiration at the manner in which you bear your burden, Cap’n. It’s a lesson to us all. Anyway what time does the main feature start? 71
Posted by OZKT29B on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:59 | # GW, I have spent the last hour or so reading the two entries you referred me to, namely What It Is to Be Human Parts I & II. Part I is essentially laying the context for what comes next – my understanding is that you see in the Social Brain thesis an opportunity to spread the ethnocentric idea via the nudge method, with the ultimate goal (I am guessing) of making it the primary strand of thought in the political discourse. Once we have the fundamentals of the idea worked out clearly, then I will be very interested to hear you describe the mechanics of implementing this strategy. Before that becomes relevant we will need to see that it is indeed a valid idea, however, and therefore worth disseminating by this, or any of the more traditional methods, such as election campaigns. Indeed considering the fact that no BNP member has ever felt the plush, comfortable embrace of a House of Commons chair, electoral politics may well be a dead end for the radical right, and esoteric solutions like this may eventually become the only option. Just one thing I want to highlight in Part I specifically. You say:
This is essentially the only place where the ethnocentric idea appears in Part I, and again we find it couched in unmistakeably religious terms. If something is self-evident to you, but you are at a loss to explain why, then logic suggests that you may well be mistaken. Part II unfolds an interesting hypothesis about the systems – motor, mentational, emotional – that form our dashboard for interacting with and making sense of our surroundings. While reading I did start to wonder where the ethnocentric idea resides in this formulation – and was slightly disappointed when you didn’t expand on that, so perhaps we could address that in this thread instead. I would submit that it originates in the emotional and resides in the mentational. I agree with the logic you use which places our elemental emotional responses in an evolutionary context – I would add by way of a supporting example that our fear of heights is an evolutionary trait, as those among our forebears who didn’t have it fell from a height before they could procreate. Into this framework it’s easy to see how Salter’s idea could be slotted in – that prehistoric man found it beneficial for gene survival (on an individual level, as I am yet to be sold on the ‘ethny’ as a unit for gene transmission) to group with many others, who eventually became known as ‘kin’. However let’s not assume the fallacy, like Salter does, that behaviour coded into us by our primeval past is necessarily of any use in deciphering and operating in the modern world – nature also gave us the appendix and birth defects, so it’s not all good. So if this was indeed the genesis of the ethnocentric idea, then I would further submit that it currently resides with the mentational system, defined by yourself as:
‘Creative thought’ is the only category that the ethnocentric idea would fit into currently, as it serves no evolutionary purpose (since the ethny has not been shown to be a valid genetic unit). Also found in creative thought would be the capacity for myth, for religion, and their natural bedfellow, the ethnocentric Weltanschauung. You may note that I have done the legwork for you in attempting to connect the ethnocentric idea to your formulation about the three systems. Having finished your train of thought, you seem to have had an afterthought about the fact that you are writing for a radical-right forum, and as a concession tacked on the following at the end:
Just to look at that first sentence for a moment:
How so? There is no progression from one to the other except by a leap of faith. Above, I have briefly sketched an ontological argument to connect the two, which you surprisingly haven’t attempted, preferring to ‘claim redoubt’ without any back-up. You can put absolutely anything at the beginning of that sentence – Socialism claims the redoubt of being and of Nature. Peruvian sculpture claims the redoubt of being and of Nature. Russian imperialism claims the redoubt of being and of Nature. I don’t mean to labour the point, however the crux of it, for me, is how your enquiry orientates itself within an ethnocentric framework – on the evidence of your article, it does not. The last sentence of that paragraph:
That’s presumably there to posit, as a binary, the ethnocentric narrative as a world of deep meanings, a world of the heavyweight, the rooted, the familiar. Again we drill down to the irreducible point and again it reveals itself to be (at best) an intangible gut feeling, (at worst) a malfunctioning religious belief. In summary I have found your piece interesting and well written, but it doesn’t even begin to explain how the ethnocentric Weltanschauung was philosophically or ontologically constructed. As I said before, moving past this stumbling block is more than a pedantic insistence on my part – the validity of all your thoughts and articles hinges on it. If the ethnocentric idea is found to be without underlying logic, but rather an intuition, then we may well have a concrete answer as to why it has been, politically, extremely marginal throughout its long and sidelined history in the political realm. OZK 72
Posted by danielj on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:41 | # Does OZK not have any first principles that he accepts as axiomatic? I don’t see how an individual could rationally defend a system of thought without accepting some presuppositions for granted (or as “received” if you insist on referring to these premises as religious) and some premises as true despite being “unproven.” Could OZK belabor himself to demonstrate the superiority of his philosophical system? It is hard to debate with somebody that won’t make clear his standard. 73
Posted by bombkangaroo on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:45 | #
When the nation is racially homogenous (ethny), then it is more than likely that the genes of an individual are replicated throughout the population. Ensuring the survival and fitness of the Ethny helps to ensure the survival of others who carry the same genes, and improves their chances of reproducing, improving the chances that those genes will be present in future generations. 74
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:52 | # I wrote too much, I’m afraid, in reply to Ozy’s comment at 01.43pm yesterday. Didn’t fancy spreading it over more than one comment, so it’s on the front page here: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/a_reply_to_ozy/ Meanwhile I see our friend has re-commented, and that one I will reply to separately when I’ve had a chance to look at it properly - probably doing so on the new thread. 75
Posted by Gudmund on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:57 | #
No. There is greater genetic difference, for example, between a White European and an African Bantu than there is between a chimp and a bonobo, and yet the latter two are classified as separate species and the former two are not.
Yaaaaawn. No, once again. The differences are very real and if I thought this person were debating in good faith I could cite plenty of scientific papers in my archives to support my view (as if the the evidence of my senses were not enough to discern the reality of the situation). But why bother? How many times do we have to address the same bollocks arguments? I for one am rapidly losing patience with doing the song-and-dance with these thick-skulled loons. 76
Posted by OZKT29B on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:58 | # Danielj, you say:
A good question, and one that I should perhaps address. Inevitably my own philosophy does have an irreducible point, and that is a Kantian formulation of morality, broadly summarised as follows: A being’s actions in the world, and interactions with the world, whether taken as an individual or as part of a larger entity, should primarily aim to minimise the suffering of the maximum number of other beings and maximise the happiness of the maximum number of other beings. I’ll anticipate the point that this could be described as a faith position. The formulation can be shuffled, but the irreducible concepts are suffering and happiness. A belief in these two things requires no leap of faith, as any sentient being has had direct, tangible experience of them. I should also note that I accept Darwinian self-interest (on an individual and genetic level) as a guiding principle behind much of our behaviour and development - the above philosophy is therefore aspirational in essence, and in practice exists in perpetual conflict with our fundamental drives. OZK 77
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:00 | #
What is the point of discussing evolutionary principles with an evolutionary illiterate? Even Blackmore concedes the memetic prowess of Christianity in serving genetic interests. Sloan Wilson takes it even further in Darwin’s Cathedral. Altruism is the fundamental starting point of ethny, which Salter explores in depth, because, even in animals, it provides a fitness benefit. However, altruism poses a conundrum and Salter is writing a prescription, like a doctor, believing the medicine will heal the patient. Altruism differs from myth, religion and Weltanschauung in the fact that they are acquired via language. However, it does not mean they do not serve any evolutionary purpose, even if it is simply cultural. 78
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:00 | # LOL! See? I told you! He basically says it all is esoteric, jargonistic, faithist horseshit. And whatever highfalutin analysis you throw at him he will give the same friggin’ response, every time.
That’s damn right, you’ve first got to explain it to him with reference to his own experience, and on the level that he can get it. 79
Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:46 | # And so to proceed, what are we to make of the following pronouncement?
This seems curiously close to former Home Secretary David Blunkett’s own declamation on BBC2 that he could see no obvious upper limit to the number of future immigrants that Britain could accommodate. Perhaps Ozy subscribes to the same view or, if not, perhaps he could offer his own comment as to when such a limit might be reached. Another 20 million? 50? 100? Or yet more? How will we know when the limit has been reached? Ozy must have some upper limit in mind, since as he states, we are nowhere near to reaching it, not in any sense? What does he consider to be the ultimate carrying capacity of the British isles? 80
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:14 | # Ozy, Your first principle is moral. Morality issues from recognition of what is adaptive and maladaptive. Therefore, no morality, however it is coded, can be THE first principle. This is an extremely important point. Don’t discount it automatically. For, you cannot understand our Weltanschauung or your own, and you cannot understand liberalism’s tangential contact with life and everything that flows therefrom, without some appreciation of the heirarchy in human motivations - indeed, in the motivations of all living things. The single ultimate principle of life, unchallenged and absolute, is the transmission of genetic information whereby we serve our role in Nature. Understand that Nature is forever conflicted against the second law of thermodynamics, and has by means of the adaptibility principle learnt to slip the grasp of entropy through the transmission of copies of itself through Time. In this regard, we are Nature, then. We are never “unfettered wills”. Our individual lives exist to transmit the particular or distinctive genes we carry through Time. Since we can pass on only 50% of our genes, and since our genetic distinctiveness is shared within our kin-group, we do not serve Nature at the individual level but at the kin-group level. As individuals, we serve Nature through serving the kin-group - and that’s the foundation of all nationalist philosophy. Another name for this true first principle is reproductive interest. Another name is genetic interest. At the level of the kin-group it is called ethnic genetic interest - religion to you, apparently. All other principles, values or interests are subsidiary, some tiered at a secondary level as guarantors of survival (territory, for instance), some tiered at a tertiary level as helpmeets of survival (marriage, for example), some tiered at a quatertiary level as useful preferences (law, for example). Beyond these, the negative principles are grouped, distinguishable by their maladaptive action. In its current Judaised form, liberalism almost exclusively commends maladaptiveness. Am I getting through to you, Mr Beale? 81
Posted by danielj on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:50 | # I’ll anticipate the point that this could be described as a faith position. It is a faith position. No different from the inspired revelation of my own or the naturalism of the others here. 82
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:22 | #
White British (whatever that means)...hmmm. So I take it white British isnt anything real then? We wont be hearing from you about the trials and tribulations of other entirely fictional group entities either I trust. Groups self-identifying as Tibetan (whatever that means), Palestinian (whatever that means) or, in a historical vein, black South African (whatever that means) can expect no sympathetic hearing from you. 83
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:32 | #
Blunkett of course was including non-white immigrants in that — not just “Polish plumbers” but Sub-Saharans, Chinamen, Maghrebian mulattoes, Subcons, etc. Far more outrageous than a, let’s say, nearly race-neutral disregard of the theory of maximum carrying capacity, his statement was an in-your-face declaration of his government’s intention to literally force a radical race-change on the population of Britain from Euro-race to Negro-race. People must understand that no less than exactly that is what Blunkett was saying there. There’s absolutely no difference between (Jewish-backed) David Blunkett’s statement there, or for that matter (Jewish) Ted Cantle’s about “hideously white Newcastle,” on the one hand, and Alex Linder’s rhetoric about exterminating the Jews on the other, except no one’s exterminating the Jews (God forbid) while the Blunketts of this world AND THEIR JEWISH BACKERS are actually, right now as we speak, in the process of exterminating Euros in Euros’ own countries (which God will in due course put a stop to). To Jews (and others) who are shocked at Alex Linder’s shocking rhetoric: Physician, heal thyself, and before thou takest the mote out of thy neighbor’s eye, take the beam out of thine own. 84
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:32 | #
Nicely put there by Lurker, replying to the obnoxious, immodest, clueless, and unfeminine (trained to be unfeminine by the Jews and Marxists she had as professors in college) Sue Donym. 85
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:17 | #
That’s true, and not to quibble, but it’s more than fifty percent of alleles if you have more children, thanks to “crossing over” during meiosis shuffling the alleles. 86
Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:56 | # @Fred - Blunkett’s remarks came in 2003, well before the expansion of the EU which facilitated the en masse migration of Polish plumbers, at a time when the regime was still insisting that net migration from the eight accession countries would amount to nore than a few thousand over a period of several years. At the time of Brlunkett’s utterances migration into Britain was almost entirely non-white. But that aside, Ozy seems to have eschewed the opportunity to defend his claims about carrying capacity. Perhaps a wise move. 88
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:29 | #
No, I meant: each of your gametes has half of your alleles but, because of crossing over, not all your gametes have the same half. So if you have more than one child, thanks to crossing over you are transmitting more than half of your alleles, taking into account all your children. I was splitting hairs there, I guess — what happened was I read that line by GW, which was right but it gave sort of a feeling that you can only transmit half of your genetic self to your progeny, whereas if you have more than one child you transmit more than half of your genetic self, via more than half of your alleles. 89
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 23:03 | #
Yes, you’re right. 90
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:45 | # In the other, other thread the Cap’n remarked:
To which I respond that my suggestion to shift the focus to one of extended phenotype rather than ethnicity was an attempt to bring the discussion a little closer to one in which matters other than ontology might receive their due attention. I don’t claim to have an inkling why it is that, for some of us, ethnocentrism has proved to be such a powerful attraction. If it were me, rather than GW, to whom the question had been addressed I would probably have responded that ‘we just can’t help it’. Somehow, one or another, we few renegades who have happened to either evade or otherwise transcend the social conditioning to which all our fellows have succumbed have done so against all the odds. Why that should be is something of a mystery. Perhaps there is some deep atavistic instinct that draws to us to our kith and kin and not to the Other. I recall reading a piece by Richard Dawkins a few years ago in which he (ever so tentatively) advanced the proposition that human races might have arisen from sexual selection based on minor phenotypical differences. The resulting in- and out-group s eventually became physically separated and inter-group gene flow dwindled to zero. Thus were the races made and deep within us somewhere we remember all this happening. Maybe. Post a comment:
Next entry: The world is only White
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:53 | #
One last hurrah:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/26/nick-griffin-bnp-folk-music?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments