The following is a reply by me to Lawrence Auster, part of the on-going debate of Svi’s Inverted World post.

Lawrence,

You are painting yourself into a corner, and it is not one from which a principled argument for the survival of Western Civilisation can be prosecuted.

Let’s clear our lines.  You and I would not talk of saving Western Civ if its outlook was not dark and getting darker.  On this, then, we can agree.  The illness has many symptoms.  We don’t need to go into all of these now.  Some are of a nature that all genuine Conservatives - and you and I are both Conservatives - will immediately identify.  Some are of a nature that Conservatives might, given the current climate, be loathe to do so.  But I will come to the imposition of silence last of all.

You and I can also agree that Western Civilisation is the production of Western Man - to be precise, of European Caucasian Man.  You and I can agree that a demographic disaster for him, meaning the loss of homeland by race-replacement and deracination, is a civilisational disaster for the West.  Again, because we are both Conservatives we can agree that in a general sense the decay of liberalism, which sad condition includes such confections as Reaganite right-liberalism and neoconservatism, describes the possible political, sociological and demographic outcomes of our age.  Needless to say, these cannot be Conservative outcomes.

Perhaps, then, we can also agree that the West’s political, cultural and corporate elites are liberalism’s executive officers, and their collective, day-to-day actions steer the West down its course to disaster.

I am confident that you and I can also agree that Jewish-authored liberal philosophies, Jewish political activism, Jewish largesse are highly germaine to that course.  (I know you have written critically, and rather refreshingly, of these things.)

That order of play - liberalism <> the liberal elite <> the Jewish engagement - is fair, I think, and should tell you that “you people”, as you name us, possess a proper understanding of the West’s political and cultural woes.  The next time you leap to your conclusion and feel the irresistible impulse to shout about how obsessed with Jewry we are, please entertain the smallest of doubts somewhere in your skull that you may, in fact, be wrong.  You are wrong now.

Very well, let’s continue.  You famously profess your desire to preserve our civilisation.  But such preservation has certain unavoidable and, for you, uncomfortable implications.  Genetically diverse peoples occupying a single living space do not merely compete as free individuals.  They compete as groups, each informed by specific group interests.  You acknowledge as much in objecting to mass imigration.  Therefore you know that competition for resources, for land and, most of all, for power is an expression of those interests.  Life is Manichean, that’s the truth.  And I should stress that it is so for evolutionary reasons.  Group interests are natural ethnic interests.  They are not culturally-imbued, as Frank Salter has shown.  They come with the skin we are in.

Notwithstanding all the familiar hogwash fed daily to European Caucasians to negate our instincts and make us blind to one another we, too, are possessed of natural ethnic interests.  And so are Jews, and those unidirectional Jewish-authored liberal philosophies, Jewish political activism and Jewish largesse that I mentioned are transparent expressions of that.  One can see straight away from their divergent purpose that there is an unfathomably deep conflict with EC interests here.  It is a conflict that Jewry has been winning hands down since the end of WW2, and that is not without the most profound consequences for the fate of the European world.

Now we arrive at the first of two vital questions, Lawrence.  Can the creator peoples of Western Civ be pulled out of their liberal delusions sufficiently to save themselves and the Civ while their natural ethnic interests are denied them?  Your whole worldview argues a “Yes” to that question because you can’t quite bring yourself to resolve that conflict of interests in our favour.  That’s why I say you are painting yourself into a corner.  Because, of course, the correct answer is “No”.

And here’s the second seminal question: Can any Jew, a member of the most ethnocentric people on earth, ever deny his own ethnic interests and, for example, promote the European racial solidarity perquisite to saving the West?  I will believe it when I see it, and right now I am looking at you, Lawrence - at your many logical inconsistencies.

Now, I would very much like you to prove me wrong on that.  You can begin by putting aside the aggressive naming of us.  This is what the Jewish enemies of ECs always do when we show signs of reconnecting with our ethnic interests.  They silence us with a cold douche of vile words.  It’s very ugly.  And it’s not remotely in your interests, old man, if you are telling the world the truth on your website every day.

Regards,

GW

MR commenter VanSpeyk suggested that we might put up a thread on European male/Far Eastern female miscegenation.  So here it is:-

I am not impressed by worries about losing America’s Anglo-European identity. Some of the most American people I know are immigrants from other parts of the world. And I’d a hell of a lot rather live in a Little Vietnam or a Little Guatemala neighborhood, even if I couldn’t read the store signs, than in many white-bread communities I can think of.

Charles Murray

Lawrence Auster takes up the story:-

Derbyshire commented:

Pure Murray—clear, succinct, data-based, no punches pulled. And not a thing I can see to disagree with [emphasis added].

Ok, Murray couldn’t care less if Anglo-European America disappears from the universe. We knew that he’s a libertarian social scientist, and as such is indifferent to cultural and ethnic realities except insofar as they can be reduced to data points. But what about Derbyshire’s agreeing with Murray? Wasn’t Derbyshire a paleoconservative on immigration, meaning someone who is attached to America’s and the West’s historic cultures and peoples? I noted a couple of months ago how he had urged that conservatives refuse to vote for the House Republicans, which, I said, would lead to the passage of Bush’s amnesty and “guest-worker” program. But now Derbyshire has gone much further, explicitly opting for a non-white America. In the past, Derbyshire had said he likes the social company of New York liberals more than that of Red State conservatives. Now he says he prefers a non-white America to white America.

Also note how race-blindness or race-neutrality never remains as such. Among Murray’s earlier points was that “English should be the only language ... in which the public’s business is conducted.” But then Murray turns around and, backed by Derbyshire, says that he prefers the non-Western communities springing up in America, even when their signs are not in English. In other words, Murray’s (and Derbyshire’s) endorsement of an American cultural component that is safely race-neutral, such as the English language, instantly gives way in the face of Murray’s (and Derbyshire’s) active preference for non-whites and active dislike of whites.

By the way, Derbyshire is married to an Asian woman, and Murray’s first wife, with whom he had two daughters, is Asian. Not that marriage to a non-white is a necessary basis of race-treason, since race-treason is the prevalent belief system of the contemporary West. But it is virtually impossible for a white married to a nonwhite to maintain a sense of identity with the white race.

I had a crack a getting at the root of race consciousness<>race blindness here.  But race treason is something else.  It has a finality to it.  Our arguments cannot reach it, and I agree with Lawrence Auster that that is most especially so where mixed-race progeny complicate the situation.  The battle is lost.

Treason through liberalism - real, thorough-going ideological treason - is largely an elites issue.  But anybody can marry an East Asian girl and bring her to the West, and frequently does.  For the loving couple, of course, there are attractions either way that I do not need to describe here.  But the resultant gene flow is for ever.  In the aggregate and old John Maynard’s long run it changes us, and we did not ask for that.  We have the collective right to apply social stigma at an individual level.  Albeit it a blunt object, it is a true one.

Murray and Derbyshire light the way for what will become of our ethnic solidarity if sufficient white men take the Silk Road.  Of all the other troubles we have with securing our racial future the loss of the white male to white womanhood is by no means the least.

After the cartoons came the Conference:-

According to the foreign ministry in Tehran, 67 researchers from 30 countries are attending the conference in Iran, which is home to 25,000 Jews.

Participants include a number of well-known “revisionist” Western academics.  American David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, is to present a paper.

Well, I suppose it was a tough call.  Grab the chance to shake hands with Nejad’s funny boys and pontificate in front of the world’s press ... or pass up the one international platform revisionists have been given in sixty years.  Maybe the 67 figured (probably wrongly) they had nothing to lose.  Maybe they followed the old rogue’s dictum: Publicity, bad.  No such thing as.  Maybe they lacked the integrity of the man brought in chains to Mannheim District Court last Wednesday, the translation of whose grave testimony that day is now circulating on the web.  Here it is (PDF).

Tehran you can forget.

This news report - “Fatherless babies in fertility revolution” - is a classic product of liberalism’s dessication.  It ascribes to fatherhood and the nuclear family no significance or worth beyond that of a blind, accidental permutation.  Its social malignity is almost too obvious and too tawdry to have to explain to the liberal mind.  The liberal mind, in any case, is not listening.  The liberal mind has no thought for the health and stability of children.  It is consumed by the pursuit of the unfettered will.

The most relevant parts of the report, from the Telegraph, I reproduce below the fold.

However, in doing so I am not only seeking to critique liberalism and spread the socially conservative gospel.  I want to air the question of whether liberal idealism or Jewish ethnic interest underpins leftward developments of today’s kind.

I don’t doubt that homosexual “rights” had a creative push from Jewish sources because they furthered the classic Jewish interest of weakening the host.  At the same time it is as plain as day to me that the pursuit of the unfettered will, as it is embedded in and expressed by advanced liberalism, provides sufficient explanation for the “fatherless baby”.  Jewish adumbrations on equality are not wholly necessary to today’s outcome, and it can be argued that they are peripheral at most.

The question is important because realism on the JQ is as needy among conventionally-minded Conservatives as breadth of understanding is to the harder edge of Nationalism.  Really, it comes down to a question of modern ideological parentage.

Contributions from the floor, as always, are warmly invited.  My feeling is that the hard men will have all the good songs, but the politically-minded are probably nearer the truth.

The Telegraph report said:-

READ MORE...

Since the May 1st 2004 Enlargement, the European Union has been operating something called a European Neighbourhood Policy.  This is its purpose:-

... we aim to avoid new dividing lines between the enlarged EU and our neighbours to the east and on the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean.  We invite these neighbours, on the basis of a mutual commitment to common values, to move beyond existing cooperation to deeper economic and political, cultural and security cooperation - strengthening stability, security and well-being for all concerned.  The new feature is that we go beyond cooperation to include economic integration, for those ready and able.

Economic integration, no less.

The “neighbours” committed to common values with, of course, no dividing lines include Algeria, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine Authority, Syria and Tunisia, as well as a clutch of eastern European or at least Christian countries.  Each is allotted an ENP Action Plan that sets out how “cooperation” - meaning mutual manipulation - can be pursued.  To be honest, I cannot see what priceless gifts are to be mined from the Islamically-inclined on the list - nothing yet from some of them because they are still to be inducted into the cooperation process.  But Israel is past all that, of course, and is already making good use of the bureaucratic channels open to it.  And guess what:-

Experts from the European Union and Israel met Thursday in Brussels to exchange experiences on combating racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism.

The one-day seminar, which took place at the European Commission headquarters, was organized in the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP).

Under the ENP EU-Israel Action Plan endorsed in 2005, the European Union and Israel agreed to work together to combat anti-Semitism as well as racism and xenophobia.

The seminar examined policies and best practice on combating racism in the European Union and in Israel.

It looked at how statistics are collected, how anti-discrimination policies are put in place and how mutual understanding can be fostered.

Sessions were also devoted to fighting racism through education, how penal legislation can be used to treat racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism as a crime and how to combat hate speech in the media.

The European experts came both from the European Commission and from the Member States of the European Union.

READ MORE...

I’m angry.  No point in pretending otherwise.  Today, I listened to a man getting away with treason.  In public and without any attempt to disguise or ameliorate the crime.

Why should he?  Anthony bleedin’ Blair – English-hater, Surface Man, Bilderberg bum-boy – is all for celebrating the destruction of my people and the slow, ineluctable theft of my homeland.  He doesn’t care.  He thinks it’s OK.  He tells himself - and us - that we don’t care either … that we are all progressing together to that happy la-la land where Trevor Phillips’ racist dreams come true.  Or dream singular, to be exact.  For the dream of blacks and Jews and the traitor class is one.  The dream of all the Western nation-haters is one.

READ MORE...

Condoms designed to meet international size specifications are too big for many Indian men as their penises fall short of what manufacturers had anticipated, an Indian study has found.

The Indian Council of Medical Research, a leading state-run center, said its initial findings from a two-year study showed 60 percent of men in the financial capital Mumbai had penises about 2.4 cm (one inch) shorter than those condoms catered for.

For a further 30 percent, the difference was at least 5 cm (two inches).

From Reuters.

So how does the James Bond of Bangladesh cut such a deadly swathe through blonde California?  Obviously not by stealing the delicious if brunette Lana Wood’s line from Diamonds Are Forever: “Hi, I’m Plenty ... Plenty O’Toole”.

But enough of that.  This is a serious blog.  So, erm ... would Phil Rushton agree that Nature’s dispensation of wedding tackle in downtown Mumbai runs counter to r-K?

There was a surreal moment on BBC 1 when Auntie’s early lunchtime News & Weather slot briefly reported today’s press conference by Super-Christians Norman Kember, James Loney and Harmeet Singh Sooden.

They were gathered in the sight of … who else but the world’s press to plead for the mercy of the court in Baghdad as their abductors prepare to face justice.  Beneath the picture of the three men on my TV a news-text ran horizontally, informing me that: “Iraq hostages forgive their victims”.

Now don’t mock.  This turns out to have been a most fortuitous and accurate mistake.

READ MORE...