I’ve noticed that the Guardianistas are clueing up on the availability of DNA testing, and are endeavouring to use it as a challenge to the argument that my succession of thread phenotypes at CiF are members of a genetically distinct European people.  As tactics go, it’s a smear really, the unspoken inference being that somewhere lurking in my ancestral history are a whole stack of Somalis and Afghans.  And it’s a variation on the old tactic of claiming that our people don’t exist or can’t be defined, and so there’s nothing to preserve.

Of course, it could just be that the folks who use this tactic are mixed-race self-haters.  Anyway, it goes like this:-

Go and take a DNA test then publish the result here so we can all see if you are as English as you think you are.

Another version concentrates on genealogy instead of the DNA test, but the inference is the same.  You are invited to snap back.

By the way, a couple of days ago I constructed a comment out of material in the second and third threads of this series, and it was bloody good.  Too bloody good for the CiF moderators, in fact.  It got deleted.  But it shows that this exercise is worth doing, and my thanks go to PF who thought of it.

By exPF

People, even elite multiculturalists, seem to understand that groups of human beings undergo various “trials and tribulations” - which test their loyalty to each other, their toughness in struggle, and their willingness to sacrifice and undergo hardship for one another. I hope we can assert here, without it being merely a facile truism, that nations, groups, peoples undergo periods of prolonged struggle and disorder which require some stronger allegiance or internal reference point - if said nation is to hold together and persist, rather than be broken by circumstance.

Put bluntly, it won’t always be days of wine and roses. Even the Blitz, even the Great Depression, don’t represent the putative low-point of communal existence: harder things may yet be demanded of us.

And there is still a lingering intuitive understanding that the only groups to actually persist through such difficulties, the only groups to survive, are those which will sacrifice for one another and bear hardship, following Hamilton’s rule, these groups are those sharing familial relationship.

That’s why they want us to assimilate. So that one day, the strife will end. One day, the controversies and debates and inflammatory denouncements and hate-speech measures will end. We will have become one. Even multiculturalists understand, in a somnambulatory way, the importance that we become family. So they posit that as their horizon:

READ MORE...

William I Robinson is a sociology professor at University of California, and a specialist in globalisation, particularly in a Latin American context.  However, on 28th January this year he gave a more general talk titled The Crisis in Global Capitalism.  He’s a pretty long way left, but he thinks he knows a thing or two about the great enemy ... “fascism”.

He talked about it for a little under five minutes in his presentation, starting at 46.24 on the slider.  The idea was to answer the question: “What is the ability of the popular classes to resist this transfer of the cost of the crisis onto their shoulders?”  Robinson came up with five answers, one of which was the rise of “fascism”.  As he says:-

A crisis also opens up space for social forces from below, and collective agency, to influence the course of history in ways that are not possible in times of equilibrium and stability.

Now, what follows tells us nothing at all about “fascism” but quite a lot about the pitiful ignorance of himself and the left in general.  The thing is, they don’t want knowledge.  They don’t want to penetrate beyond the usual “resentment and fear” level of analysis of our motivations.  They think that’s enough.  They are happy with that.

Nonetheless, Robinson feels empowered to pass judgement on us.  Here he is doing just that:-

A fourth thing that we can imagine taking place here, or a fourth response to the global crisis - and, again, I’m not saying this is taking place and this is not predicted - is what I call a 21st century fascism.

The confusion here when I raise this with colleagues and with critics is when I say the term “fascism” they imagine it has to look like 20th century fascism.  And not in the least.  Not at all.  We don‘t go backwards in history.  We are not going to see a new Nazism or Mussolinnism.  21st century fascism would look very different - it‘s already looking very different.  There are signs of this as a response, as a project.

Well, alright.  This seems like it might be new and interesting.  Whatcha got?

Certainly, there were signs of the beginnings of an articulation of a 21st century fascist project with Bush and the neocons and the defeated McCain wing of the Republican platform.  But also around the world we see in Bolivia, we see in Columbia, we see in Venezuela, we see in Austria, we see in Germany, we see in many parts around the world the articulation of a fascist response.

Germany?  Would that be the Germany.  Next to Austria?  Nah, can’t be.

READ MORE...

You might be interested in watching this lecture on the collapse of the middle class given by Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren, who also authored “The Two Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke”.

It debunks many of the standard libels of the middle class used to justify race replacement over the last generation.

A lot of us foresaw what she foresaw but her unique contribution is her academic credibility as well as best-seller status.

Update: She is also now occupying a highly visible public office as Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP Funds.  You can see her most recent video report for an example of how she is filling her new public position.  My read is that her main role is to sit by and watch the Treasury department malfunction and report the resulting deterioration.  She’s basically powerless to prevent malfeasance—only to report it after it has happened and then based on limited authority to impose accounting criteria.

Update 2009/04/05: The UK Guardian reports that: Elizabeth Warren, chief watchdog of America’s $700bn (£472bn) bank bailout plan, will this week call for the removal of top executives from Citigroup, AIG and other institutions that have received government funds in a damning report that will question the administration’s approach to saving the financial system from collapse.

By exPF

Guessedworker asked what our answer is to the liberal concept of “happiness” which has been so vital to human life post-1787.

The answer is: tragedy. Or, as Dostoevsky described it: “the spiritually regenerative power of suffering.”

Nietzsche once commented that happiness and sadness are twin sisters, they either grow large together, or they grow small together. A life full of happiness has to be equally full of suffering; likewise, a life lacking in suffering has to be equally lacking in happiness.

What this means concretely is that, in order to truly become anything, one needs to go through processes which consist largely of negative experiences. Suffering tends to push one further down the road towards becoming, towards change - simply because when we experience suffering that is serious or profound, we tend to alter our approaches and ourselves in response to these painful stimuli. Having changed, having become something new, we can reap the benefits of our new state of existence, and thus have a higher degree of pleasure than we previously knew.

The lack of suffering, or pleasure, tends to facilitate continued being - i.e. people are lazy and will continue doing something as long as it continues to please them. Like electrons, humans tend to take the path of least resistance.

A person who experiences only pleasure after pleasure, finds little reason to become anything.

READ MORE...

The period covered by Red Riding - 1974 to 1983 - came as the classical Marxist cycle, with its prostitution of trade union activism for class-warfare, lost all traction and before the “cultural” cycle, with its bourgeois values of hyper-individualism, radical egalitarianism and anti-discrimination, gained any.  We plainly see that working-class life has completely lost its motor.  A strong sense of moral hiatus is present.  We are invited to supply meanings, and that is what I am doing in these essays.

I’ll pick up where we left off with Part 1 and get straight to the point.  That’s my point, of course.  Whatever the point that Tony Grisoni and, before him, David Peace intended to make – and they are wellnigh certain to be left-leaning so it wasn’t mine, I’m sure - the one that comes barrelling out of the TV screen and knocks you sideways is the power and meaning of a general and secular redemption.

In the world of Red Riding, in which innocence is so finally and absolutely betrayed, the redeeming agent is simple fidelity to that innocence.  Thus the corrupt but guilt-tortured Maurice Jobson finds redemption in confessing to the child-like Michael Myshkin (David Mays), a Stefan Kiszko figure whom he had framed eight years earlier for the abduction, rape and murder of three young girls .

The gluttonous and seedy John Piggott, the very model of the failed male, finds his redemption in the defining moment of the whole six hours of Red Riding … the moment when he recovers the missing child Hazel Atkins alive from some old underground workings.  These workings connect to a pigeon loft owned by the now very late Martin Laws.  The wordless, slow-motion emergence of Piggott, with Innocence in his arms, from darkness into a space whitened with rising pigeon feathers and shot through with sunlight is beyond poetic.  It has all the luminancy of archetype.

I think it deserves a closer look.

READ MORE...

I’ll have more to say about it later, but one of the things that struck me while reading “The 10,000 Year Explosion” by Cochran and Harpending is their theory of Indo-European expansion (p181):

We suggest that the advantage driving those Indo-European expansions was biological—a high frequency of the European lactose-tolerance mutation (the 1390-T allele).

Certainly plausible since, as they point out, not only does it expand the carrying capacity of grasslands by a factor of 5, it confers greater mobility than other forms of agriculture.

But they also mention the widely accepted fact that the Indo-Europeans were mead drinkers—although they don’t mention the fact that mead was also so highly prized that it was routinely used in rituals—quite possibly because the highest concentrations of sugars—hence fermented spirits—available to them was honey rather than grapes.

Which is all my way of introducing the idea that “The Land of Milk and Honey” would have had more significance to the Indo-Europeans than to a lactose intolerant group that didn’t have mead as its primary ritual drink.

This is something the Christian Identity folks should have picked up on but I don’t recall any references to that theory by them.

By exPF

This is the pilot episode of a new series of posts where rival Jewish theoreticians go head to head in a blood-and-guts extravaganza like nothing else you’ve ever seen! Its incredible, its shocking - at the end of the fight, only one theoretician will be left standing!!! Are you ready?
Predicates will fly, conditional sentences will crunch, assertions will go “snap” under the gruesome, bone-crushing force of Ashkenazi brilliance! Be prepared to be mildly startled!

In the far corner, weighing in at 190 lbs not including the facial hair, German jewry’s gift to Eastern Europe’s smart fraction: KAAARRLL MAAARX!

In the near corner, the reigning champion, 167 lbs of pure Jewish Freedom: LUDWIG VON MISES!!!

LET’S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!! (cue music)

And they’re off! - Mises starts off with a critique from his essay, Marxism Unmasked (pfd). He describes Marxist theory in outline.

Marx developed what he thought was a new system.According to his materialist interpretation of history, the “material productive forces” (this is an exact translation of the German) are the bases of everything. Each stage of the material productive forces corresponds to a definite stage of production relations. The material productive forces determine the production relations, that is, the type of ownership and property which exists in the world. And the production relations determine the superstructure. In the terminology of Marx, capitalism or feudalism are production relations. Each of these was necessarily produced by a particular stage of the material productive forces. In 1859, Karl Marx said a new stage of material productive forces would produce socialism.

But what are these material productive forces? Just as Marx never said what a “class” was, so he never said exactly what the “material productive forces” are. After looking through his writings we find that the material productive forces are the tools and machines. In one of his books [Misère de la philosophie—The Poverty of Philosophy], written in French in 1847, Marx said “the hand mill produces feudalism––the steam mill produces capitalism.”3 He didn’t say it in this book, but in other writings he wrote that other machines will come which will produce socialism.

Its categorically impossible for one historical figure to reply to refutations of his theory which come into being a century after his death! Accordingly, Marx is just standing there, as Mises continues to pummel him with critique. This could get gruesome, folks …

READ MORE...