Although this isn’t addressing the primary cause of the loss of legitimacy—immigration enforced on the states with integration enforced on citizens—this is a very positive development.  The primary danger here is that some “higher power”, such as a North American Union if not the United Nations, will attempt to disintermediate the relationship between the States and the Federal Government—using this crisis as an opportunity to increase the de facto centralization while, in effect, nullifying the US Constitution. 

In any case, the time is coming for action.

By exPF

Refute (or counter) the following.

You have made a statement - it could be any statement - about non-whites generally, and the reply comes back:

That’s racist! Its fundamentally racist, what you’re saying.

One of the most common arguments used in real life. I’m curious to see what ideas you have for turning this one around with minimal argumentation.

... some retain the ability to surprise. 

John Redwood is a senior Conservative politician and former minister who is currently co-chairman of the party’s Policy Review Group on Economic Competitiveness.  His blog is here.  If you scroll right down the thread you will eventually get to the point of my post now, which is a terse 33-word statement from Redwood in the form of a reply to my, as usual, lengthy missive.

That’s all I need to know.  I’ve posted a (mercifully brief) sign-off to the interchange, but it’s yet to be moderated.

The time is coming for action.  Legitimate government is nonexistent anywhere in the Eurosphere for the simple reason that men would not agree to sign a social contract that entailed a “peace” consisting of the invasion of their territory by an overpopulated world.  The fact that invasion is enforced on unwilling locales through “integration” laws is also, by itself, sufficient to remove legitimacy.  This lack of legitimacy is increasingly obvious as the pathologies, caused by enforced invasion, erupt in symptoms that threaten subsistence due to economic “crises”.

To create property rights beyond those that would exist in the state of nature and to ensure the social stability of said property rights, the following actuarial militia is proposed to operate in locales occupied by no more than a few thousand people:

To minimize tactical voting and the resulting political parties, all votes are under the approval voting system (you can “approve” of more than one candidate). To minimize campaigning all voting is continuous—a running tally of approval is maintained at all times. The militia members accept new members at the 2/3 approval threshold and reject existing members at the 2/3 disapproval threshold. Militia members invite someone to be their leader with a 2/3 approval, ties are broken by degree of approval. Leaders are rejected at 2/3 disapproval of militia members.

By mutual consent with customers, renewed annually, the militia accepts insurance premiums in an amount set by actuarial calculations based on any information deemed appropriate by the militia, and paid in militia-issued scrip, for protection of property rights, and for their indemnification in the event of loss due to criminal act, including impositions by illegitimate governments.

Militia members are:

1) not charged for coverage of their homestead property rights (home and means of supporting their family),

2) paid dividends as equal holders of voting shares, and

3) expected to self-equip under principles similar to those intended in the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Militia scrip enters circulation via dividends to the members and is removed from circulation by withholding militia dividends.

From a real one-issue blog that I hadn’t heard of until today:-

The UK Telegraph is the only main stream media to run something about Goldman Sachs’ threat to file a lawsuit against me. That’s pretty standard for the U.S. press and media to ignore the stinky and powerful Oger in the room. In fact, the U.S. main stream media, with a few exceptions, only runs stories about Goldman Sachs that seem either written by or approved by the Goldman Sachs Public Relations Department.

Why have none of the major papers or news programs not dared to ruffle a feather at Goldman Sachs, when this company is ripe for reporting. A simple look at who comes out of Goldman and where they go is enough to make for a full length movie. In any event, here is the U.K. Telegraph article ...

And here’s the meat of the Telegraph story:-

Goldman Sachs hires law firm to shut blogger’s site

Goldman Sachs is attempting to shut down a dissident blogger who is extremely critical of the investment bank, its board members and its practices. The bank has instructed Wall Street law firm Chadbourne & Parke to pursue blogger Mike Morgan, warning him in a recent cease-and-desist letter that he may face legal action if he does not close down his website.

Florida-based Mr Morgan began a blog entitled “Facts about Goldman Sachs” – the web address for which is goldmansachs666.com – just a few weeks ago. In that time Mr Morgan, a registered investment adviser, has added a number of posts to the site, including one entitled “Does Goldman Sachs run the world?”. However, many of the posts relate to other Wall Street firms and issues.

According to Chadbourne & Parke’s letter, dated April 8, the bank is rattled because the site “violates several of Goldman Sachs’ intellectual property rights” and also “implies a relationship” with the bank itself.

GS is the supplier of bankers for senior federal government positions.  But it also sits at the heart of the web of global financial power.  As Mike Morgan says, “Yes, I am short Goldman Sachs stock. I believe this company is evil and should not exist. We need to begin to break up companies that have as much control over world finances as Goldman Sachs.”

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...