By a Finn

I wrote this text originally as a short comment on Social construction, and its structure reflects that. I was asked that this text would be lifted to main-log form. My acceptance and the text’s present position does not in itself refer to agreement or disagreement with any of the opinions or texts on this site.

This text is about a specific part of Social construction theory, that which is most relevant to pro-Europeans. I develop the theme from part to part. My intention in this post is not to claim that all Social constructionists use their theory to it’s limits (although many have done so). My intention is to define Sc’s abilities and moral “boundaries”.

The information refers to those leftist intellectuals who understand their ideology, not to the useful idiots or emotional hang arounds.

¤ Social construction theory (Sc), although it is often dressed in universal altruism, is in reality one of the most efficient method of acquiring selfish political power to those intellectuals who are skillful in it.

¤ In power games truth, scientific knowledge etc. are often unimportant. For example, an emotional, scientifically false theory about “political time” might be more efficient in a power game than scientific truth about “time”.  In it’s starting point, Sc gives equal value (partly overlapping) to objective, subjective, natural, artificial, socially-constructed (i.e formed in people’s interactions/thoughts), physical, real, unreal, and imagined information, among others.  Any of these could be in some situation useful in gaining power.  In reality though, Sc is heavily weighted away from natural, objective, common sense, scientific knowledge. This is because such knowledge is generally fairly static and immutable, and is the knowledge of normal, non-Sc people, and therefore the base of their power.  Political power is obtained most efficiently when there is great latitude in the information used, which gives larger possibilities in the political game.  It creates dialectical or multi-dimensional contradictions and distances between the existing information of the rulers and it’s Sc opponents.  These contradictions and distances can be utilized in countless of ways in obtaining power - whatever is propitious in a given situation.  Sc chips away at the rulers’ power constantly in small or bigger ways, and channels that power to itself.  If Sc would agree with the information of the rulers, it’s political possibilities would be severely limited.

¤ Sc creates contradictions mainly in the following categories: space (free, limited, taxed, large, small, publicly produced, privately produced, coded entrance, constricted, wide, polluted, clean, living space [e.g. apartment houses], commercial space, crowded, empty, natural, artificial, etc.), language (words, sentences, texts, political, meaningless, scientific, subjective, objective, economy related, language upholding the power structures, powerless, desperate, poverty related, sexual, heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, dialects, languages of different ethnicities, advertisement and marketing, cultural, movie language, language in everyday situations, etc.) who is the actor (humans, machines, systems, natural laws, economic laws, market place, rulers, subjects, slave owners, slaves, scientists, lay people, producers, service producers, farmers, skilled workers, officials, man, woman, masculine, feminine, majority, minority, intelligent, wise, stupid, ignorant, progressive, reactionary, native, immigrant, virtuous, evil, moral, immoral, new, old, young, elderly, etc.), time.  I give a list:

* measured vs experienced ~ objective vs subjective
* continuous vs fragmentary vs intervals
* past, present and future in different combinations or contradictions
* experience space vs expectations horizon (Koselleck)
* time in a straight line, cyclical time (repeating events), spiral time (Jean-Paul Sartre’s construct), multi dimensional time (e.g. person contemplating in present time with the help of historical information the future of many people and their time lines)
* continuing, open and ended time
* constant speed, accelerating (e.g. internet and new technology) and decelerating time
* reversible vs irreversible time
* normal vs exceptional time
* natural vs time produced by humans
* life cycles’ different parts
* collision of two different times (e.g memory of similar historical events influences the present situation considerably)
* simultaneous vs happens in or experiences different times
* different multibranching times

Etc.

All these and their constituent parts can be analyzed and combined in dialectical or multipart wholes (parts can oppose, strenghten, harmonise, contradict, coordinate, synchronize, interrupt, prevent, accelerate etc. each other) in ways that produce the most efficient political results.

¤ Because according to Sc almost everything is socially constructed this gives it’s proponents a power that supersedes the power of “gods” and high priests. Two examples:

a) The function of the heart is, according to Sc, socially constructed no matter what medicine, evolutionary biology or other sciences say about it. This means that the function of the heart, in addition to pumping blood, could equally be determined to be giving rythm to drums, or to die (John R. Searle, The Construction of Social Reality).

b) Science proves that there are differences between races and ethnicities, but socially constructed political correctness (in everyday language, science, media etc.), affirmative action, redistribution of wealth, socialism, soft totalitarianism, free speech monitoring and suppression, etc. win out over science and reality. Thus is constructed the reality that Sc intellectuals want, and which gives them large political power.

¤ Sc also gives other advantages ... or “advantages”.  It is complex and counterintuitive, and this serves to strengthen the Sc intellectuals’ in-group definition, its boundaries and exclusivity, reducing the possibility of free-riding and outside infiltration (e.g. since conservatives regard Sc as non-scientific, not sensible, in fact stupid, this reduces the possibility of infiltratration by them. On the other hand Sc intellectuals infiltrate conservative groups and institutions eagerly and without compunction).

When Sc compels it’s political subjects to declare as “true” things they know to be false, stupid and detrimental to them and their group, this emasculates them psychologically, strenghtens the smothering power of Sc intellectuals and makes their subjects psychological slaves.

Studying and applying Sc includes elements of simpler repeats, so giving it rituals. These move it towards psychologically permanence, exact certain costs and thus reduce free-riding, help to memorise essential “slogans” (thereby giving practical operating instructions), define the in-group/out-group further, etc.  Constant repeating of the “racism” trope in different contexts, ways and intensity is one example. The r-word is a political invective, not a definition of something. If somebody foolishly accepts it is as a defining word for himself, he will be forced to explain it away: “I am a racist, but ...”  Real definitions don’t require that.

Sc gives a license, moral or practical, to do anything, i.e. to construct almost any reality; lie, cheat, murder, infiltrate, extort, to be immoral, make revolutions, rob, etc.  And not only that, it gives the possibility to mass murder and genocide, and regard it as an act of loving kindness towards all humanity.  For example, Finnish stalinists (taistolaiset) and many other cultural marxists, beginning in the sixties and seventies, regarded Stalin’s actions as morally good and loving towards all humanity, enlightened, progressive, etc. They said that the Soviet Union’s weapons are “Weapons of peace and progress” (this was also the official policy of their peace movement).  They said that communists’ wars (i.e. brutal and selfish wholesale murder, torture, rape and pillage to gain political power) are “Altruistic acts towards the betterment of humanity” and “Romantic and exciting, like a love affair”.  On the other hand they said that “Western weapons and wars are brutal reactionary acts of aggression and suppression” and “Selfish capitalists’ wars of exploitation”.

The Sc gives licence to use any need, aspiration, stupidity, knowledge, emotion, group, system, dependence, etc. of the people as a vehicle to power.

In short, the Sc is a secular selfish power religion.

It is necessary to pro-Europeans to study and learn from it and use it, but not, of course, the anti-human elements of it.

Today’s Sunday Mail carries a story about the leaking of details of a new MI5 operations centre by a careless council somewhere in south-east of England.  In the course of the article the website Secret Bases was mentioned.  It’s a four-part resume of mostly unacknowledged British intelligence facilities, supported by dozens of aerial photographs - many acquired through a “resident pilot”.  Part One is here.

Secret Bases is run by a guy called Alan Turnbull.  I take my hat off to him. If he has a counterpart in the US, he’s not nearly so outrée.  Does anyone know of a comparable site?

On Wednesday night the BBC Radio 4 programme The Moral Maze devoted 45 minutes to consideration of whether BNP members should be employed in public services.  7 minutes 40 seconds was given over to the (decidedly) cross-examination of Mr Lee John Barnes, who these days goes under the title of National Coordinator of the British National Party legal department.

His performance was nothing if not combative, and earned him and the party some level-headed and fair praise from one panel-member, Michael Portillo.  For breaking the BNP taboo, he will no doubt receive the due amount of contumely and criticism from former friends and colleagues.

The programme can be heard for the next few days here, with Barnes’ contribution starting at 11 min 56 sec.

Barnes answered (rebuffed, really) the less than neutral questions of panel members Melanie Phillips and Clifford Longley.  The first question, though, came from the programme’s presenter Michael Buerk:-

Michael Buerk: Do you accept that some people want limitation on who should be allowed to be BNP members is because your party is widely regarded as racist?

Lee Barnes: Erm, there’s a lot of people in society who are very ignorant of what our party stands for.  Our party isn’t racist.  Basically our party has a positon which is on immigration ... it’s on ... it’s ... primarily our focus is on space more than race, erm, and if you check most of our literature you will find that’s true. There’s isn’t a real racial issue in there anymore.  If anyone is in this country illegally or unlawfully we’re gonna ‘ave ‘em out regardless of race, colour, creed.

Spacist not racist!  Does anybody really believe that?  Probably not.  But, obviously, the party has not been able to defend itself against the charge of racism.  I’m not constrained by the minefields of the political world.  I’m interested in developing an argument that thoroughly nukes the “r” issue.

Towards the end of last week I spent three or four days picking up not one, not two but three Guardian bans while defending the BNP membership against the deracinated hanging judges of the Comment Is Free website.  That takes my CiF bans to sixteen, assuming I haven’t forgotten any of my earlier dramatis personnea.  Does it get me in the Guinness Book of Records?  Probably.  Shouldn’t I be ashamed of this obsessive desire to force innocent liberal backs to the wall?  Er ... erm ... aaah ... nope.  I’m just shameless like that.

Besides, this really only mildly obsessional effort is devoted to a perfectly noble cause: to test the intellectual quality and rhetorical strength of my current ideas against the best, generally, that the other side has to offer, and to refine them further in the light of that experience.  This, in other words, is a work in progress.

READ MORE...

“Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”

So if we depend on Samuel Johnson’s rule, what are we to make of reports that:

Even as it gasped for breath, American insurance giant AIG was lobbying the United States Congress hard to get the Indo-US civil nuclear energy deal cleared, reports ProPublica.org. Business, it would appear, runs politics in the United States.

American International Group, or AIG, is supposed to have spent over $5 million lobbying in favour of the nuke deal. AIG deployed its own in-house lobbyists, but also employed five lobbying firms, to influence bills and other policy matters in Washington, claimed the ProPublica report.

The signing of the bill by President George W Bush in October signalled a new chapter in Indo-US ties. With the clearance of the deal, India has been released from the 30-year-old sanctions during which it was not given any civil nuclear technology to ramp up its energy needs. The ban was imposed soon after India first tested a nuclear bomb at Pokharan, Rajasthan in 1974.

So why was AIG so keen?

Or, as Samul Johnson might ask:  “So why was AIG’s mind so wonderfully concentrated on India’s nuclear capabilities by its imminent bankruptcy?”

Here’s a plausible explanation that also tends to explain the current terror attacks on Tata Group’s assets in Mumbai:

As has been previously reported, international fraud rings have penetrated the financial centers of the US and we should expect that along with the rest of the Fortune 1000, AIG’s main vulnerability to such international fraud rings is via India’s takeover of US financial information technology.  Those of us who have seen the information industry in the US sold down the river know that Israel has played no minor part.  Indeed, it is entirely plausible that it was the historic feud between Hinduism and Islam that made USrael sacrifice the uppity US technologists on the alter of an alliance between USrael and India in the middle East.  It seems unlikely that any major-league financial con could be pulled off by the Indians without the knowledge if not consent of the Mossad.

With lame-duck Bush leaving office, the prospect that the US might not be as reliable an ally of Israel in the hands of a protean Kenyan and Iran ramping up its enrichment capability to 500 centrifuges, now would be the time to close the deal with India:  arming it to the teeth with nuclear weapons.  This will require money—not a lot in the whole scheme of the financial catastrophe—but enough to be noticeable without such a cover.

India has population to burn and a lot of urban areas in serious need of new infrastructure—and a Brahman caste traditionally more tied to the rural areas than are the current elites in the West.  The deal:  600 million Muslims for 600 million (lower caste urban) Hindus.  USrael gets to sit out the nuclear conflict, wringing its hands with furrowed brow.

If this money—less than $100 billion but probably more than $20 billion—were being funneled to India via AIG, how would it become observable?

One way might be for AIG’s primary partner in India to suddenly undergo a terrorist attack in the financial center of India.  So who is AIG’s primary partner in India?

The Tata Group

And what might be the Tata Group’s asset most vulnerable to terror attack while likely being currently involved in the the laundering of tens of billions for nuclear arms buildup?

Here’s a reasonable candidate:

When violent attackers besieged the Taj, as it is universally known, on Wednesday night and embarked on a murderous rampage, they targeted one of the city’s most sumptuous buildings and best known landmarks.

But they also went after something larger: a hulking physical embodiment of India’s deepening involvement with the world.

The Taj is where privileged Indians come when they want a world-class meal. It is where pinstriped foreign investors come when deciding whether to invest in India or outsource jobs here. It is where Mick Jagger, Liz Hurley, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt come to make their homes away from home.

And it is owned by a conglomerate, the Tata Group…

Oh, and don’t forget the Israelis.

Drudge and Bloomberg but no major US news gatherer has covered the impolitic opinions of Prof Igor Panarin, a leading Russian political analyst who was interviewed yesterday by Izvestia.  This is a guy who predicted in 1998 that the American economy would collapse and America itself would be torn apart by conflicting regional ambitions.

He is reported by Drudge as saying:-

“The dollar is not secured by anything. The country’s foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse.”

... Asked why he expected the U.S. to break up into separate parts, he said: “A whole range of reasons. Firstly, the financial problems in the U.S. will get worse. Millions of citizens there have lost their savings. Prices and unemployment are on the rise. General Motors and Ford are on the verge of collapse, and this means that whole cities will be left without work. Governors are already insistently demanding money from the federal center. Dissatisfaction is growing, and at the moment it is only being held back by the elections and the hope that Obama can work miracles. But by spring, it will be clear that there are no miracles.”

He also cited the “vulnerable political setup”, “lack of unified national laws”, and “divisions among the elite, which have become clear in these crisis conditions.”

He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.

So, is there a serious chance that Panarin is right - at least about a break-up of some kind?  Is perhaps white secession an opportunist gambit requiring rapid racial assortation rather than a grand and long-deliberated plan?  If so, an internal volition would drive the process of white decision-making, and largely do away with the work of raising racial consciousness.  And the problem of an all-powerful, jealous and malign Federal bureaucracy spiking every attempt to jump-start a secessionary process also falls away.

Some planning there would still need to be, of course.  But under immeasurably more propitious circumstances for a clean and quick outcome.

Well, I guess it’s something to talk about over the winter evenings.

By David Hamilton

Gordon Brown and Business Secretary Lord Mandelson went to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states in the first week of November 2008 to ask them to fund our faltering economies by putting billions into the International Monetary Fund.

In return they offered them some control over Britain and the West. The Saudi regime is the motor behind Islamisation of the West. It is Saudi’s Wahhabi form of Islam which, together with the Shi’ites in Iran, aims to make Islam dominant in the world. Saudi money has financed the spread of Wahhabi mosques, preachers and educational institutions in this country promoting holy war and converting thousands of British Muslims.

Saudi Wahhabism seeks to conquer the West through a pincer movement comprising violence on the one hand and cultural infiltration on the other, and our Prime Minister is colluding with them. Lord Mandelson admitted that the Saudis and other Gulf states would get more influence in global institutions in return:-

“The Gulf is open to business but they’re also signing up as keen partners to help the rest of the world to get through the international financial crisis,” he said.

“Specifically, it means that they will contribute to the IMF fund… but they will also contibute as partners to the decision-making that we need to make to build up the institutions, the new practices.

Islamic influence is spreading into our cultural life as the Arabic investors buy Western institutions. Manchester City F C is now owned by the ruling family of Abu Dhabi; Barclays Bank, has had almost £6 billion invested from Abu Dhabi and Qatar.

READ MORE...

So thirteen BNP leafleters were arrested by Merseyside Police on Friday in at least four separate groups.  They have been cautioned, fingerprinted and swabbed - with force, probably illegal, being applied by six constables in one case - and released on bail.

Their crime is to have distributed a rather lurid leaflet, designed by Mark Collett.  It made the case for a different interpretation of the lethal violence between native Britons and their unsoliticed guests from the one we normally hear about in the mainstream media.

Scotland Yard is also said to be poring over the leaflet looking for grounds for prosecution under the Incitement to Hatred law.  It looks and feels very like a Home Office inspired attempt to block leaflet circulation.  Can it work?

The passages in Racism Cuts Both Ways which may possibly provide an excuse to the state to legally-harrass the party appear to be these, if the Independent article is anything to go by:-

From Nick Griffin’s introductory statement on page 2 of the pdf (also page 2 of the leaflet).

... our people are the silent victims of an epidemic of racist violence, sexual exploitation and murder.

From page 5 of the pdf (page 8 of the leaflet):-

“Wherever there are large numbers of young Muslim men, groups team up to lure girls – often as young as 12 or 13 – into a nightmare world of sexual abuse, rape, beatings, drug addiction and prostitution.”

... and:-

This deliberate preying on girls from other communities - together with the refusal of Muslim leaders to condemn what is going on - show that these campaigns of sexual abuse are racist.

From page 5 of the pdf (page 9 of the leaflet):-

The average racist murderer in Britain is 40 times more likely to be an ethnic minority than a native Brit.

There are caveats in the form of a statement to the effect that the party’s beef is with the “hostile ruling class” in politics and the media, and to the effect that most ethnic minority members lead respectable and law-abiding lives.  But, legally, such caveats do not excuse statements elsewhere that may contravene the law.  It looks to me as if statements one and two above are inflammatory but it would take a very determined prosecutor to construe them as inciting hatred.  If statements three and four are supported by good evidence no jury would convict.

Politically, a trial of leafletters would be a public relations disaster for the government.  There ought now to be a period of inaction from Merseyside Police, followed by a muted statement that no further action will be taken.

So if the legal explanation is not convincing.  What about spoiling tactics?

Well, with recession hitting, the government is more nervous than at any time since 7/7.  Not a day goes by without some inconvenient news story escaping into the right-wing media.  Ethnic recruitment to the police has been hammered.  Senior non-white officers are taking the Met to the courts for its alleged institutional racism.  The Black Police Officers Association has advised minority members to look elsewhere if they are contemplating joining the force in London.  The new Immigration Minister Phil Woolas has made a complete fool of himself promising and then unpromising a cap on immigration.  We’ve just had the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government telling Guardian readers in the most shallow terms how to beat the BNP.  Jon Cruddas, the MP whose Barking & Dagenham seat is most threatened by the dratted nationalists, is off shortly to shout “fascist!” and “racist!” with the in no ways fascist and racist Holocaust Education Trust ...

It’s all becoming perfectly ghastly for them.  The government is always being advised by its own, ideologically complacent supporters to take the argument to the BNP, and rebut their claims.  This must have been considered by the Labour Party already, and rejected on the grounds that they would be defending much they know to be indefensible.  How do you tell white families in London, Birmingham, Leicester or Manchester how lucky they are to have immigrants everywhere?

So perhaps all that is left is doing nothing and letting the BNP spread its unquestionably damaging and fundamentally true message, or raising the ante for BNP activists by some uncompromising treatment at the hands of the Staatspolizei.

If it’s the latter, it will not work.  It will have the opposite effect, galvanising an already motivated membership and showing the British public early a Leviathanesque face they will one day come to know only too well.

Total Wall St. Bailout: $2.56 trillion
Total Consumer Debt: $2.59 trillion