Posted by anon on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 05:17 | #

Its as I said to you before GW, its already too late.

http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2007/06/fertility-up-again.html

Muhammed the #2 most common name for a baby boy in England.

What are you BNP supporters gonna do, wipe them all out? I don’t think so.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 06:20 | #

Anon’s motivations are easy to explain - like many weirdos, he actually loves race-replacement. It’s his favourite god-damned thing in the entire world. Most normal people have “hobbies” - gardening, fishing, stamp-collecting, bird-watching, scuba-diving, photography, etc are all what normal people do - but anon’s hobby (and perhaps his profession too - for most would-be race-replacers, race-replacement is a whole way of life - they turn up to work every day, which is of course in the field of race-replacement, and in the evenings they leave work to attend a meeting of some “advocacy” organisation or other dedicated to - each group usually takes a separate name, but the goal is always the same: government-sponsored race-replacement) is actually race-replacement. His last comment makes that abundantly clear. Only a genuine love of race-replacement, as a personal hobby, could possibly be behind that comment. That’s all.

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 06:35 | #

You really are on song today, GW.

It has always been somewhat baffling to me why the Irish-descended, Roman Catholic, Labour-voting ‘Scots’ like Reid, whose time-honoured ancestral antipathy to England is well-documented, support Irish nationalism but vehemently resist the Scottish variety.

Matra’s thoughts on this subject would be interesting.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:52 | #

Right on cue, Labour Deputy Leader candidate and annoying human dynamo Hazel Blears has beautifully demonstrated the blinkered analytic capacities of the political class:-

Hazel Blears, fighting to become deputy leader of the Labour Party, was last night at the centre of controversy after she appeared to suggest that immigrants were engaged in anti-social behaviour and street drinking.

Ms Blears also said people in her Salford constituency were concerned that immigrants were undercutting their wages and that they were less willing to pay tax. The Labour Party chairman told The Independent on Sunday she was “very worried” that the far right was capitalising on fears about immigration because mainstream politicians were failing to address people’s concerns. About 40 per cent of the public thought immigration a significant issue compared with 10 per cent a decade ago, she said.

“There has been a dramatic change in communities. We have got people living in Salford now from every country under the sun. We used to be 93 per cent white working class. Our community’s changing before our eyes. People can see it and when they see it they get worried - if it is not being managed properly.”

British people did not object to immigrants, but they wanted “fairness” in the way that they behave. “If it is perceived not to be fair, then you do get tension,” Ms Blears said. “I think everyone is working harder now probably than they have ever worked before and they feel that everyone who can work should. They don’t like people to avoid paying taxes: if they have got to do it, everyone else should.

“We have got areas in Salford where private landlords are letting properties with 10 and 12 people in there. Now the community doesn’t object to the people, they object to the exploitation and the fact that that leads to people being on the street drinking, anti-social behaviour. They don’t object to the people being there, but they object if they are undercutting wages and not getting the national minimum wage and they are not abiding by health and safety, so you have got to enforce the law.”

So “the people” - presumably the Salfordians who are actually Salfordian - don’t object to invading foreigners ... oh no, heaven forbid that left-liberal sensibilities don’t live in every working-class English heart.  No, they just want to know that their race replacement is “being managed properly.”

Posted by Bodkin on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:39 | #

That is very impressive Guessedworker.  You and the others have created a very high quality site.  Keep up the good work.

Posted by PF on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:53 | #

Has anyone checked the latest issue of Occidental Quarterly? There is an article by Kevin MacDonald about explicit vs. implicit white ethnocentrism.

Whats really interesting about this article, well besides everything else about it, is that it uses fMRI data to demonstrate the brain regions in which implicit/explicit thinking about ethnocentrism take place. The explicit, ‘cultured’ reactions were seen to be coming from the prefrontal cortex, seat of abstract thinking. The ‘uncultured’
reactions which occured seemed to be generated by the ‘lower’ and evolutionarily anterior subcortex. The model is tempting and easy to understand.

In addition to that, MacDonald offers some data from across the spectrum of American social life that shows ‘implicit white communities’ gaining adherents across the board. This data is good in terms of ‘testing the waters’ and seeing which way the camel is rolling, so to speak.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:01 | #

PF,

Soren referred to it in his interview with Alex Linder.  I have read the article and am still considering a response (and referred to it in passing in my Individualism piece).  I do think it was an extremely intriguing contribution that deserves a wider commentary.

If, of course, you are interested in doing something along those lines ...

Posted by PF on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:06 | #

Correction to me comment:

The MacDonald article summarizes research on fMRI studies and the psychology of Ethnocentrism.

Posted by PF on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:30 | #

Hi GW,

  I don’t think it will work out coming from me alone because I’m working 10 to 14 hour days the next few weeks. I will fumble around in the sources index and see if I can do some research on the fMRI studies, which may arrive on your desk in a more or less polished form, maybe I can do some research and you can write.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:49 | #

OK, if you come up with something interesting let me know.  I am sure that between us we can put some thoughts together.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:20 | #

Anon is hardly alone in writing epitaphs.  It seems the rhetorical trend is to deny the fact, or alternatively the significance, of the death of Euroman by immigration, and then to subsequently write his epitaph:

Walter Laquer for instance, writes:

European Lessons: “The Last Days of Europe”
National Review | 6/6/07 | Stanely Kurtz
Posted on 06/06/2007 5:44:15 AM PDT by SShultz460

Can uncontrolled immigration kill a continent? According to
Walter Laqueur, it already has. Laqueur, an historian who’s spent a lifetime
moving between America and Europe, is a scholar and public intellectual of
international stature. So its news when the latest book from so
knowledgeable and unimpeachable a friend of Europe echoes and extends the
themes of a pugnacious series of American tracts on European decline.
Whether European intellectuals will be able to dismiss Laqueur’s The Last
Days ofEurope:

Epitaph for an Old Continent, just as they’ve dismissed so many
other such books, is an open question. (It’s tough to discount a book
endorsed by Henry Kissinger and Niall Ferguson.) What’s certain is that, in
the midst of our own immigration debate, Americans cannot afford to ignore
The Last Days of Europe.

Immigration Disaster In combination with Europe’s demographic
decline and guilt-laden multiculturalism, says Laqueur, unchecked
immigration has created a massive and growing population of unassimilated
Muslims, hostile to their own countries and determined to transform Europe
beyond all recognition, through a combination of violent and non-violent
means.

Why had the European countries brought these [Islamist] attacks upon
themselves?  asks Laqueur.

Above all,  he says, it was naivete that had made possible the
indiscriminate immigration of earlier decades.

In his concluding reflection on what went wrong for Europe, Laqueur
singles out immigration as first among causal equals:

...uncontrolled immigration was not the only reason for the decline of
Europe. But taken together with the continent’s other misfortunes, it led to
a profound crisis; a miracle might be needed to extract Europe from these
predicaments.

In Laqueur’s telling, the trouble began when European countries recruited
workers abroad to do the work European workers were not willing or able to
do.

Only about half of the (supposedly temporary) guest workers who came to
Europe during the boom years of the 1960s returned home as initially
planned.

Others stayed on legally or illegally and in many cases brought relatives to
join them, and the host governments were not willing to enforce the law
against those who broke it.

When Europe’s boom gave out following the OPEC oil shock in 1973,
governments stopped issuing work visas. But that didn’t stop immigration.
Relatives flowed in legally, through family reunification laws, and
illegally, as immigrant smuggling became a major business.

There followed a flood of asylum seekers, to whom the authorities were
quite liberal in their approach, even though the majority of these
immigrants, probably the great majority, were not political refugees but
economic migrants.

Many were Islamists, others hoped to establish criminal gangs, but all
asylum seekers, whether legitimate or illegitimate, were supported by a
powerful lobby, the human rights associations and churches that provided
legal and other aid. They claimed it was scandalous and in violation of
elementary human rights to turn back new immigrants and that in case of
doubt mercy should prevail.

As supposed asylum seekers poured in, they destroyed their papers, making it
impossible for European authorities to deport them. What’s more, border
controls inside Europe were largely abolished and if an immigrant had put
foot into one European country he could move freely to another.

Laqueur adds that the number of asylum seekers, real and bogus, began to
decline after 2002, following the introduction of more stringent screening
measures.

But by then it was too late; Europe had entered its last days.

It should have been clear early on that immigration was creating serious
problems, says Laqueur.

Muslim resistance to assimilation was evident, as were the warning signs of
demographic decline. And had it been clear, it is hardly the case that
nothing could have been done about it. After all, says Laqueur, illegal
immigrants to Japan or China, Singapore, or virtually any other country
would have been sent back within days, if not hours, to their countries of
origin.

Yet, because all this was ignored, says Laqueur, we now face the end of
Europe as a major player in world affairs.

Almost overnight, Laqueur continues,  what had been considered a minor
problem on a local level is becoming a major political issue, for there is
growing resistance on the part of the native [European] population, who
resent becoming strangers in their own homelands. Perhaps they are wrong to
react in this way, but they have not been aware until recently of this
trend, and no one ever asked or consulted them.

What Were They Thinking?

Laqueur returns several times to the failure of Europe authorities to
consult with the public on immigration. Instead of putting the matter up for
debate, government and corporations quietly and unilaterally set policy.
Europe’s elite had a bad conscience, given memories of refugees
from Nazi Germany who’d been turned away decades earlier. There was also
the omnipresent fear of being accused of racism.

This bizarre combination of multiculturalism and complete disregard for the
significance of culture opened up a huge gulf between Europe’s elite and the
public a gulf that emerged openly when France and The Netherlands rejected
the proposed EU constitution (in part over concerns about Muslim immigration
and the accession of Turkey to the EU). There was, says Laqueur, a
backlash against the elites who wanted to impose their policies on a
population who had not been consulted….Another important motive was the
reluctance to hand over national sovereignty to central, remote and
anonymous institutions over which people had no control.

Laqueur concludes that it’s next to impossible for an historian to establish
just what it was that Europe’s authorities were thinking when
they formulated the immigration practices now undermining Western
civilization in its very cradle. To the question ‘Did they imagine that
uncontrolled immigration would not involve major problems?’

Laqueur responds that it is unanswerable. (My guess is that, like today’s
market-based immigration advocates in America, European leaders were focused
on the immediate need for labor and gave little if any thought to long-term
social consequences.

In other words, the simplest explanation for Laqueur’s inability
to track down the deep thoughts of Europe’s leaders about the cultural
consequences of immigration is that there never were any such thoughts.)

Anon is correct to point out the repatriation problem.  It is enormous and there must be intelligently architected policies that admit that from time to time there will be ethically justified war.  I’ve attempted to start on that with allodial freedom of association combined with eminent domain as the foundation of all other “human rights” as a means of establishing a peaceful repatriation process—with the complementary justification of war in cases where it is resisted.  It is imperative that others take on this task too.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:57 | #

James,

I’ve argued on a gut-feeling basis that two decades remain to do these things by persuasion and reform of government.  But the game changes gear at some point and my conservative approach must be shelved until victory and time allow it to assume its proper place in the life of European Man again.

This is realpolitik and real war, minus your ethical justification.  But we come to the same place.  Do you agree with the timescale?

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:42 | #

As I’ve pointed out before, its quite plausible that technological and/or ecological wild cards will play a more important role than analysis from realpolitik and “real” war indicate. 

Indeed it appears to me we have only one decade before technologies enable individuals to wipe out the cities—this at a time when many technologists will be experiencing the sexual equivalent of torture.

The ecological wildcards, such as colony collapse disorder, attack the base of the human food chain, or XDR TB, etc. attacks the viability of high population densities such as cities.

I think it is reasonable to address your proposition as a conditional probability that these wildcards aren’t in play, however my point is that it is a mistake to assume the precondition. 

My experience with government and politics, which is nontrivial compared to many “activists”, is that the positive feedback loops are out of control—that it is too late to reign in the power of the Leviathan—it must be killed.  The doom of the State as a viable vehicle for our posterity, at least in the US, traces back to at latest The New Deal and quite probably to the “Civil War” when the Union substituted accessionary slavery for plantation slavery.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:29 | #

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:30 | #