The two dominant racial stories currently on the Daily Mail website are the pursuit and stabbing of Nicholas Pearton in South London by six negro gang-members and the lift from The Times about the “tidal wave” of Muslim grooming of white girls in the North.  They are both very emotive stories.  They are both completely ignored by the left-wing press and the BBC.  Google has removed all links to the original Times story and the Daily Mail version.  It is completely clear that white lives do not mean anything to the people involved in those decisions.  What does matter is the progress of the MultiCult.  At all human costs, if those humans are white.

Now, I think it unlikely that all or even very many of the journalists and editors involved are Chosen.  They are white liberals.  The political malice and detachment from reality, the evident unwillingness to comprehend that but for honesty and responsibility among journalists like themselves these terrible events and thousands of others like them might never have happened ... all that belongs to the liberal mind.  My question is: how did that mind come to this vile and complicitous estate?  How did it arrive not just at the point where it is content that the lives of hundreds of young girls and their families be ruined and young boys be murdered, but where it actually chooses it as a preferred outcome?  Consistently, over a period of years?

I don’t have a real answer.  But here are what seem to me to be a few clues.

1. Psychologically, the willingness to submit strangers to harm is associated with an exaggerated respect for authority.  The Milgram experiments of the early 1960s demonstrated exactly this.  Liberalism in its philosophical conception was a retort to the power of the Catholic Church, and it retains the teleological essentials of religion.  Indeed, its ultimate meaning is the replacement of God with Man the Creator.  The liberal is a religious.  Would he not, then, invest his politics with religious authority, and find therein the need for a religious obedience?

2. The very essence of obedience is the objectification of one’s own role as an instrument of authority, rather than as a fully human being responsible for his own choices.  The liberal no doubt believes he is only “following orders” to do good, and if one day he is brought before due process that is exactly what he will plead.

3. We observe liberals projecting loathing onto others on a daily basis.  Projection is obviously a significant factor in the psychology of the liberal.  It is also very apparent to us that liberals, in their desire to demonstrate their doctrinal purity, can be extravagant in their denial of humanity to their own people, as well as their approbation of it in others.  How difficult can it be, then, for these people to view white children as objects of no account?

4. Not every person has the right psychological profile to inflict harm in this mechanical way upon other people.  It seems likely to me that part of that profile must involve a strong capacity for self-delusion.  We, of course, are well aware that the radical, self-authorial individualism which energises liberal politics is a fiction.  Yet I have encountered scores of ordinary, little liberalistic people who insist on their own peerless sovereign individualism.  They are fooling themselves, every one.

By contrast, nationalists have to hack their own truths out of the political rocks, and withstand the gale of ideological hatred while they do it.  They are genuinely independent of mind (as well as often quite eccentric).  They tend to argue a great deal with one another too - something liberals are not noted for.

That’s about it.  It aggravates my soul that there are people in this world who would conspire to remove news about negro youths and Pakistani males for the sake of white dispossession.  That they have the power to do it, too, is almost too much.  Sometime someone is going to have to pay.

UPDATE - THE ESTABLISHMENT HAS TO ACKNOWLEDGE MOSLEM CHILD GROOMING, BUT BEGINS TO CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF THE TERMS OF DEBATE

READ MORE...

Yesterday I had to drive my daughter the forty miles or so to her university halls in central London.  The journey took me through the southern outskirts of the London I used to know, and where I spent twenty of my first twenty-one years, and on through the dark heart of Africa.  It’s a journey I made in September too - for the same purpose - and, as then, I arrived at the river in a state of deep misgiving, even though I knew in my mind what I would find.

But it’s when one encounters Africa and Asia in person in the places one knew intimately as a child that the term “race-replacement” is revealed in its starkest and most uncompromising reality.  My secondary modern school had over six hundred white-skinned pupils between the ages of twelve and sixteen.  There were a handful of Jews among them, who I did not notice or pay attention to.  But there were no Africans or Asians at any time while I was there.  In six years of representative football, cricket and athletics matches with the other five secondary moderns in the district I came across one black lad.  My old stamping ground looks to be 25 to 30% vibrant now, though it’s much more than that, of course, as one travels northward up the London Road.

There is, though, something very evident that no one in the mainstream speaks about, and that’s the de facto racial segregation that forces itself onto one’s consciousness as the ribbons of shops and shoppers go by.  White couples, white friends, white families walk together.  They do not mix with other races.  Asians do the same.  Blacks do the same.  The In-Betweens who, in South London, are overwhelmingly the products of black male “cross cultural fertilisation”, would seem to disappear into the black groups.

There were vanishingly few multiracial groups visible on both journeys.  I don’t doubt that where social mixing across the races takes place it is negotiated without too much in the way of problems.  But a preference for social mixing, if it is there at all, is manifestly avoided when people go outdoors!  The anti-racist strategy, exercised as it is by the presumption, itself racist, of an original sin of white skin, appears to have failed - if, of course, we accept that its goal was panmixia rather than white suppression.

If it was just designed for suppression, it’s been a startling success:

READ MORE...

The word “duel”, in the context of my prescription for reversing civilization’s dysgenic direction, is a connotation-play.

Everyone knows the derisive connotation of “duel” as a dysgenic display of mutilated manhood wherein two men try to kill each other under conditions bearing virtually no relationship to those under which man evolved.

When I confront those using this word to smear my prescription for single combat under natural conditions, the response is to retreat into a definition of “duel” that includes any form of contest between two parties.

Very well then.  If “duel” means any form of contest between two parties, then we can discuss mass warfare as a duel between two bodies politic, can we not?

The reason Hollywood portrays single combat between two men in virtually all of its action adventure movies is because they know more about us than we know about ourselves.  We have been made to fear and loathe our own Being and Jews commodify our discontent and sell it back to us on DVD (to paraphrase Bruce Sterling).

The notion that our Being does not incorporate the valor of single combat in under natural conditions as an essential property of manhood—but is merely an invention of the movie “Dune” (as has actually been posited in these discussions)—evidences against our pursuit of Being as a remedy for Jewish domination of our myths.

Jews are happy to portray a gang of white supremacists in the Pacific Northwest putting a hapless, unarmed “citizen” into a forest while they hunt him down with guns purchased from some corporation but that’s the closest they’ll come to our Being, and they can rest assured there are plenty in “the movement” working to further this kind of fear and loathing of our own Being.

A brief note on a phenomenon central to civilization which I will call “connotation play”.

Words are crucial to polity and their abuse as weapons ensures collapse either of the genetic capacity for verbal communication (due to dysgenic selection) or the collapse of the polity.  A chief mode of word combat is to use words “loaded” with connotations—that is to say, “loaded” words.  Connotation-play consists of using a loaded word in such a way that the connotation most effective against the opponent is active, while retaining plausible deniability of that connotation in the event that the player is challenged on the connotation.  Let me give a familiar example in the word “racism”:

“You’re a RACIST!”

We’re all familiar with the connotation of the word “racist”:  “You believe your race should act collectively to enslave and/or kill other races.”  This connotation triggers the consequent:  “Therefore you, as an individual, enjoy no protection from actions against you by the government on behalf of protected races.”

If the attacker is countered by the attacked with “You mean to tell me that merely wishing to live and raise my children in an environment similar to the one in which I grew up renders me a RACIST?” the attacker has the option to retreat to, “Of course!  By construction the word ‘racist’ means someone who believes that the concept of ‘race’ has practical implications.”  From this posture, the attacker is rendered immune to all counter-accusations and can deny the connotation’s consequent, having already inflicted injury.  This unassailable position of retreat from the connotation-play is, in fact, an aspect of the connotation-play, even when such retreat is rendered unnecessary by the circumstances, such as mass-media presentation of the connotation-play.

It is, hopefully, unnecessary for this audience to be taken through the familiar connotation-plays of “diversity”, “discrimination”, “prejudice”, “xenophobia”, “anti-Semite”, “homophobic”, “tolerance”, “equality”, “democracy”, “minority”, “majority”, “supremacist”, etc.

The point here is that connotation-play is a central component of civilization’s dysgenic impact on the genetic capacity for communication hence on its own viability as a polity.

It is my strongly held opinion that W. D. Hamilton is correct in “Innate Social Aptitudes of Man” when he asserts:

...civilization probably slowly reduces its altruism of all kinds, including the kinds needed for cultural creativity…

Moreover it is my strongly held opinion that it is self-evident that the meaning of life is joy of creation.  Therefore I have put forth one proposal to reverse civilization’s dysgenic attack on the meaning of life.

Others disagree and they might desire to come forth with critiques of my proposal, as have so many pseudonymous and anymous critics.

However, no one—and I mean NO ONE—has yet come forth with their own proposals for eugenics programs that are not reducible to a vague wish-list.

I therefore invite you to propose your operational definition of a eugenics program you see as desirable.  Please keep anything that smacks of a critique or wish-list to a minimum and, if you can, stated separately so it can be noted as a “goal” or “digression” from the primary purpose of the thread.

Wikipedia’s intro to Operational Definition is reasonable:

An operational definition defines something (e.g. a variable, term, or object) in terms of the specific process or set of validation tests used to determine its presence and quantity. That is, one defines something in terms of the operations that count as measuring it. The term was coined by Percy Williams Bridgman and is a part of the process of Operationalization. One might use definitions that rely on operations in order to avoid the troubles associated with attempting to define things in terms of some intrinsic essence.

The operational definition seeks not “what” (essence) but “how” (operation).  Think of the opposite of the 3-wishes myth—the 3-wishes myth which allows the genie or leprechaun or whatever granting the wish to fulfill the wish in undesirable ways not anticipated by the wisher.

by I. Bismuth

December 27: This evening, despite my pleas for a little quiet Scrabble, Rose treated herself to yet another orchestral concert. Lying on the sofa, legs comfortably crossed at the ankles, hands palms downward at her sides, eyes shut, and chin pointing to heaven, she was a soundbather. And as she received her ear-tanning, I was jealous of a periwigged composer. She was in his company, not mine. I was intruding. Here was a scene for two, and I was some poor devil at a keyhole. Once the last movement had finished with her, though she opened her eyes at me, her smile was for my rival in the machine.

But young old Mozart finds she is hard to please. The music lover is a greedy lover. The brief life of her illicit composer makes her peevish. She reproaches him with having breathed his last long before his inspiration was feeling even slightly run-down. The filling to capacity of Köchel’s catalogue is not enough for her. Only up to K626? No further? If he had employed better time management techniques to his last twenty-four hours on earth he could have dashed off a couple of divertimenti between death rattles. He had disappointed her.

No, even worse—his early departure was criminally inartistic, a kind of burglary. He is a note-thief who sneaked past her too young to his grave, his brain stuffed like a pocket with her rightful musical pleasure.

December 28: Though Rose turned me down yet again and I was expecting no triple word scores this evening either, I was in for a surprise.

She was still on the sofa, but her infidelity differed in three ways from yesterday’s: the concert was televised, and the untimely dier was not periwigged but bespectacled (Schubert was deputizing for Mozart). The third difference was that I came to see my misgivings about her relationship with music not as discreditably personal and motivated by resentment at her canoodling with the spectral masters of sonata form, but as socially responsible and motivated by the moral imperative of stamping out all traces of racism, wherever they may be found. Let me explain how I found them in the insolent beauty of a symphony.

The symphony in question was Schubert’s in C major, nicknamed “Great” for the benefit of the tin-eared.

READ MORE...

Apologies for the Anglo-centric slant.  As ever.

So, then, in no particular order ...

WINNERS

Geert Wilders
... whose PVV increased its number of seats in the Dutch House of Representatives from nine in 2006 to twenty-two this year, taking third place, actively participating in the subsequent negotiations - and therefore policy considerations - for a government to be put in place.

The anarchist left
Out of nowhere, the left has demonstrated yet again that it can demonstrate.  And hack.

Right-wing talk radio
Hunter will explain, I feel sure.

Margaret Hodge and the Barking Labour Party
They may be baddies of the little screen but they are heroes to the left.

Nick Griffin
... who, by surviving (though, of course, losing in) the EHRC’s legal attack, has won the battle for political nationalism in Britain, and put himself quite beyond challenge.

Arizona
Never mind that a judge has proved that democracy does not exist in America.  The will of the people was heard.

Goldman Sachs
Parasites.  Rich parasites, though, and getting richer by the second.

Thilo Sarrazin
So, a German Establishment figure writes a best-seller about the nature of the modern age, and it changes the debate.  The power of words does not work only for those who work against us.

Swiss democracy
So, a European people is actually asked if they want minarets.  Naturally, they say no.  Jews attack.  S’all good. 

The Taliban
Notwithstanding the many unlovely aspects of these characters, there is something encouraging in the sight of a popular and, let’s face it, truly courageous refusal to submit to Western political and industrial hegemony.

English Defence League
Credit where credit is due.  They are demonised.  They are kettled.  They are growing.

LOSERS

The BNP
All the momentum of 2009 has been thrown away.  The movement has been split.  It’s a disaster.

Multiculturalism
Merkel has said it.  Cameron has said it.  The idea that multiculturalism has been an unmitigated disaster for the elites who promulgated it is now “out there”.  Can they replace it with integrationism, that’s the question.  They will try.

California
Because there are consequences, economic and fiscal, to race-replacing a white population with a Mexican one - consequences that the political class and the interests they serve never thought or cared about.

The Pres
One term.  Sweet.

The Euro
Germany holds the key because it will not agree to a fiscal union.  So while the present crisis may be surmountable, the next one won’t be.  And there will be a next one.

The Miliband who won
Who?

The climate change lobby
Warmist n. {warm-ist} supporter of wealth transfer tax to banking dynasties; liar, with ref to man-made global warming.

White South Africans
Will continue to lose until there is a Volkstaat or a resettlement in the mother continent, or both.

The taxpayer
Well, the taxpayer is a loser by definition.  But now the consequences of fiat money, big government and socialised banking losses have hit home, and it’s all on a different scale.

Ireland
The Tiger is not simply an endangered species, it’s a dead one until Ireland leaves the Euro club and rejoins Sterling.  Except the Irish would rather live a PIIGS life than come back into the folds of mother’s skirts.

Who did I miss?

by David Hamilton

Science is supposed be objective and free of the scientist’s values, but Franz Boaz turned Anthropology into an ideology: an ideology is a set of ideas that incorporate value judgements. In the Soviet Union everything was presented as they wished it was and not a reflection of reality. All policies were introduced ostensibly for the workers but the elites were rich and lived in exclusive areas like our elites; it explained everything in economic or material terms and other aspects of life are left out.

Ideology is reasoning from the orthodox belief rather than from empirical evidence and the subjects are slotted into it. There are two sides good and bad people like the war with The Devil in Christianity.

Boas changed the object of the racial bias in anthropology from tribes onto Europeans. He taught that theories should be treated as works in progress, until proven beyond doubt. His grounding in the natural sciences made him aware that the difference in the study of humans from geography or zoology was the study of “culture.” He did not see culture as linear progression, until it reached the level European civilisation and rejected the attendant notion that those who were behind were inferior.

Boas was the first scientist to state that the White and the Negro were fundamentally equal and he actively supported African American organizations. (1) As an anthropologist he sought to use science, including his studies of tribal peoples, to seek out and document the truth about the significance of race. It was his hope that people could learn to be tolerant of difference, and to see so-called primitives not as inferior or less developed, but as a source of diversity that had much to offer.

Researchers had noted differences in height, cranial measurements, and other physical features between Americans and people from different parts of Europe and to many this showed innate biological difference between races. Boas’s primary interest was the study of processes of change; he set out to determine whether bodily forms are also subject to processes of change. This was in his mind when he studied 17,821 people, divided into seven ethno-national groups. The problem with that is diet: the cranials of Japanese immigrants grew bigger because of nutrition. People grow bigger now and there are fewer bandy-legged people because of less rickets.

His 1912, study on the plastic nature of the human body in response to changes in the environment has for the past 90 years been taken as evidence of cranial plasticity but never seriously examined for statistical and biological validity. By using pedigree information in Boas’ data, narrow sense heritabilities are estimated by the method of maximum likelihood. In addition, a series of tests and regression analyses are performed to determine the statistical validity of Boas’ original findings on differentiation between American and European-born children and the prolonged effect of the environment on cranial form. Results show the relatively high genetic component of the head and face diameters despite the environmental differences during development.

In 2002, anthropologists Corey S. Sparks and Richard L. Jantz, claimed that differences between children born to the same parents in Europe and America were insignificant, and that there was no detectable effect of exposure to the American environment on the cranial index in children. Their results contradicted Boas’s findings and showed they could not be used to support arguments of plasticity in cranial morphology.

READ MORE...