|
|
Racism: Steering a middle way(OK. I know that people who drive down the middle of the road tend to get smashed up) Ethnicity and group membership is one of the great preoccupations of the human race ... possibly second only to sex. It is also an almost taboo subject among modern-day white liberal Anglo-Saxons. Race is to the modern-day civilized and educated world what sex was to the Victorians—unmentionable. In other words the strength of resistance to discussion of it is a measure of the threat to a civilized order that it is seen as posing. Amid this fearful silence, I, of course, have always continued to call a spade a spade: not a recipe for popularity among modern-day intellectuals! My position is really only a classical Anglo-Saxon attempt to find the golden mean between conflicting extremes. It seems to me, in short, that there ARE real differences between races and other groups but that only a few of these differences are of any importance. In other words, I reject the blind Leftist assertion that we are all the same under the skin and I also reject the view that only people like us are any good. This causes Leftists and humanists to see me as a racist and racists to see me as a Leftist pointy-head! In other words, the whole issue is such an emotive and explosive one that the middle-ground tends to be a rather lonely and uncomfortable place. Group-sentiment is an amazingly pervasive thing. To take some examples from where I live in the State of Queensland and in Australia generally: Queenslanders all know what Queenslanders generally think of “cockroaches” (residents of the State of N.S.W.) and “Mexicans” (Southerners generally) and most know how Sydneysiders and Melbournians regard one-another but such sentiments fade into insignificance if you talk to a Launceston resident about Hobart people! Residents of the two largest towns in a quite homogeneous place like the State of Tasmania hate one-another! And non-Tasmanians would notice no differences at all between the two! So what hope is there for the Protestants and Catholics of Ulster, the Tamils and Sinhalas of Sri Lanka, the Jews and the Arabs of Israel, the Serbs and the Croats of the former Yugoslavia, the Xhosa and the Zulus of South Africa, the Sikhs and the Hindus of Panjab, the “untouchables” and the caste Hindus of India, the Southerners and the Northerners of Italy, the French and the English-speakers of Canada etc etc etc? And to think that for the whole of my active career as a social science academic, my colleagues virtually universally believed that only maladjusted deviants were racists. I have always thought it to be crystal clear that EVERYBODY is a racist to some degree! My colleagues obviously thought that all the world was out of step and only they were in step. I did my best to disabuse them of their silly notions but there are none so blind as those who will not see. Of course, discriminatory attitudes towards other groups such as those I have listed ARE generally nonsense. You do not have to be sick in the head to believe nonsense. If you did, most of my academic colleagues would be VERY sick in the head. In fact, of course, they are simply wishful thinkers—like most of humanity. Wishful thinkers are not scientists, however. To help see why discriminatory attitudes to other groups are generally nonsense, consider, for example, that Catholic and Protestant Ulstermen come out here to Australia and live side by side with no problems at all. Nor does a Launceston person who moves to Hobart or a Melbourne person who moves to Sydney thereby undergo any sort of personality change. All that is going on with discriminatory attitudes is that the old human preference for familiarity is raising its head. We like people who are like ourselves and people who have made the same decision as we about where to live (or happen to live where we live) become thereby more “like us” and are therefore preferable to others. So I sound like a nice safe liberal in saying that do I not? Where I get into trouble with liberals, leftists etc is that I go on from there to say “But NOT ALL differences are imaginary”. Most loyalty-provoking group differences are either imaginary, trivial or evanescent BUT SOME ARE NOT. As I see it, those who deny ALL intergroup differences are just as dogmatic, irrational and sweeping as the racists they claim to oppose. They are in fact accusing 99% of the human race of being totally blind and preoccupied with something that does not exist! Even I am not misanthropic enough for that! I think it is pretty clear who the blind ones are. As I see it then, the differences between people of Northern European race are objectively (but not subjectively) mostly trivial. They have been invading and taking over one-another for so many thousands of years that the national gene pools must overlap almost totally. When they emigrate to countries like the USA and Australia, their children cannot tell one-another apart and get on as well with one-another as they do with anybody else. But some groups ARE different and probably will remain so. The outstanding example of this is of course the negroids. Whether they are discriminated against (as in the old South Africa), discriminated in favour of (as in the USA of the 1970s, 80s and 90s) or treated reasonably impartially (as they long were in Britain), they always as a group end up the same—at the bottom of every heap, mired generally in criminality, violence, incompetence, drug abuse, promiscuity and poverty. And this is not peculiar to white-run countries. They are no different when they live in the African-run countries of Africa and the Caribbean. So for those who will see it, we now have mountains of evidence for the view that, as a group, negroids are just not fully civilizable. Only the disagreeableness of that conclusion could blind one to the evidence for it. But THAT conclusion, it seems to me, is important. The whites of the Southern States of the U.S.A. understand the limitations of blacks very well as they have lived with blacks for many generations. The influx of blacks into the Yankee North is however much more recent and the overconfident idealists of the North are still trying everything in the hope of fully civilizing all their blacks. Poor fools! I must emphasize here, however, that I am clearly speaking about groups and do NOT assume that what is true of the group is true of all individuals in that group. So individual blacks may be very highly civilized indeed. The person I quote most often on my blog is an American black (Thomas Sowell). And, unlike Leftists, I don’t think group problems can be solved at the group level. I think that treating people according to what they as individuals do (regardless of any group to which they may belong) is the only way to solve problems that the group as a whole may pose. And note that what I say has nothing to do with skin-colour. Indians are just as brown as Africans but are vastly different. They tend to move towards the TOP of the heap outside their native land, and, as a group, are extremely patient, polite, hard-working, law-abiding and family-oriented. I personally like Indians very much. And Arabs are as white as many Europeans but would be in a very poor position indeed except for their oil wealth. The characteristic Arab achievements at the moment seem to be religious fanaticism, treachery and incest. Obviously, we should all continue to treat individuals from different groups according to their individual merits but people who report that IN GENERAL they do not like members of a certain group are certainly not to my mind necessarily irrational, misled, deluded, ill-informed or ill-educated. They MAY be perfectly rational, balanced and well-informed. And anyone who doesn’t want to live around negro populations is just looking after his own skin! And the phenomenon of “white flight” shows that most Americans understand that very well—regardless of what their expressed attitudes might be. I should perhaps note here that the quality of human populations is much better predicted by theoretical biology than by skin-colour or by any other physical feature. A theoretical biologist would look at the way in which human populations have historically always been on the move and are always in competition with one-another (often by way of warfare) and would expect this movement and competition to have a levelling effect. Truly inferior populations would be wiped out by superior competitors. Any limitations on this process would limit its effect of continual upgrading of survival-fitness. But what could limit this process of competition? The major limit would seem to be geographical barriers. Populations that are physically barred from contact with one another CANNOT compete. But the largest land-mass on earth is the Eurasian one and movement across it is fairly free in most directions. Relatively cut off from Eurasia, however, are Africa, Australia and the Americas. So competition would be greatest in the largest land-mass (Eurasia) and relatively cut-off populations (in Africa, Australia and the Americas) would be less subject to competition and hence less fit for survival. So all the people of Eurasia should be relatively high-quality and the people of Africa, Asia and the Americas should be of lesser quality in important ways. This does appear to be true. Put Eurasian peoples such as East Asians, Indians and Caucasians together and they all compete effectively and achieve at similar levels (vide the Indians in South Africa and Britain and the Chinese almost everywhere outside China). The three are very different in physical markers of race (skin colour, eyes etc) but all are of roughly equal quality otherwise. By the same token, African negroes, Australian Aborigines and perhaps the Amerindians are of markedly lower quality. The negroes I have already commented on, the Aborigines are arguably the least survival-capable major population on earth (exactly what one would expect of the most isolated population) and native Americans are almost as badly off as the Aborigines despite their basically Asian genetics. I should note that this account does not require an absolute absence of contact: merely contact that is relatively restricted. In the case of African negroes the major barriers to contact were probably the Sahara desert and the Indian ocean rather than the Red Sea and the Mediterranean sea. North African populations are Caucasian rather than negroid. It is for this reason that many geographers, anthropologists etc. treat Sub-Saharan Africa as a distinct entity. Real ethnic differences need not of course be aversive. People would hardly travel so much if they were. The eminent French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss regards racial discrimination as DESIRABLE precisely on the grounds that it fosters diversity. I do not go that far but I do nonetheless enjoy all kinds of ethnic diversity in a way that, I suppose, makes me an ideal citizen of a multicultural society like Australia. Posted by jonjayray on Thursday, May 19, 2005 at 08:43 PM in Race realism Comments:2
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 19, 2005, 11:11 PM | # ”[Ethnicity] is also an almost taboo subject among modern-day white liberal Anglo-Saxons.” Its near-taboo status is a sort of liberal paternalism: it’s taboo because liberals think non-whites are not as desirable as whites, so reminding non-whites of their undesirable status by admitting they exist is too terrible—in liberals’ view it’s like cruelly thrusting their non-whiteness in their face on purpose, just to hurt them. That’s why the liberals have striven since around 1970 to make the perfectly polite word Negro taboo: they see a Negro as such a terrible thing to be that it’s unmentionable in their eyes, and they’ve largely taught the Negroes to see themselves that way too, so thanks to the liberals, many Negroes now feel anyone who considers them to be Negroes, which of course is what they are, is gravely insulting them. The proper view of the matter is that Negroes have some problems which we can all face together, whites and Negroes, and surmount as far as is possible, and nothing is to be gained by denying the existence of the Negro race. “It seems to me, in short, that there ARE real differences between races and other groups but that only a few of these differences are of any importance.” Where race-replacement immigration is concerned, John, it’s not up to you to pass judgment on which racial differences “are of any importance.” What needs to be done is to ask the people targeted for race-replacement—the Danes, for example, or the Norwegians, Flemish, or French, let’s say—all of whom are currently targeted to be replaced by some combination of North Africans and Negroes, just as the Germans are targeted for replacement by Turks, the English by a combination of Orientals, Subcontinentals, and African and Caribbean Negroes, the Americans by all those plus hordes of Mexicans, and so on—what needs to be done is to ask the people targeted for race-replacement if they want to undergo it. That’s all. You don’t need to exert yourself to decide which differences between races are important. They’ll decide that, based on whatever they judge, publicly or privately, to be important, using whatever criteria they want—criteria which are their business. They get a secret ballot. You and I don’t have to know what their reasons are—it’s none of your or my business. This sort of thing applies to race-replacement of whites by other whites, or course: if some future Norwegian government decides to halt the replacement of Norwegians by Moroccans, which is currently well underway, and instead to replace all Norwegians with, say, Poles, Germans, Bosnian Serbs, or some other white race, the exact same principle applies: before going ahead with replacement the government of Norway should let the Norwegian people decide in a binding referendum, through secret ballot, whether or not they want to be race-replaced. And the same thing applies to non-whites of course: if the Australian government cooked up a scheme to replace all the Abos with Somali Bantus the Abos should be asked first if they want to be replaced, and if they say they’d rather not be, the government shouldn’t put the plan into effect. In the United States, President Bush never asked the American people whether or not they wanted to be replaced with Mexicans. He just started replacing them, calling any who questioned it “racists” in order to shut them up so there’d be no hindrance to the smooth completion of the plan. That’s clearly unjust, and liberals, CCRs (Country Club Republicans), Neocons, and other groups who support this are committing a grave wrong that’s going to come back to haunt them one day. 3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 19, 2005, 11:19 PM | # “In other words, I reject the blind Leftist assertion that we are all the same under the skin and I also reject the view that only people like us are any good.” Can people object to being race-replaced without harboring the view that “only people like us are any good”? Or is that impossible? I don’t think most people who’d object to their community or nation getting forcibly race-replaced feel that “only people like us are any good.” Take me, for instance: I like all other peoples but I don’t want mine to be race-replaced. Is that possible? Or am I imagining things, believing that’s possible? Is there some inherent contradiction there? Are we allowed to sincerely like other peoples, sincerely wish them well, yet not wish our own people to undergo forcible race-replaced against its wish (as that wish keeps getting expressed time and again in public-opinion polls, incidentally)? “Of course, discriminatory attitudes towards other groups such as those I have listed ARE generally nonsense.” Friends of MR.com all, without exception, oppose meanness or unfairness toward others no matter what their race. They would feel outrage if a Negro, North African, Pakistani, or Chinaman, for example, were treated unfairly because of his race. All they ask is that their communities and nations not be race-replaced against their will. Is that too much for them to expect? “To help see why discriminatory attitudes to other groups are generally nonsense, consider, for example, that Catholic and Protestant Ulstermen come out here to Australia and live side by side with no problems at all.” Catholic or Protestant immigration from Ulster won’t change Australia’s basic race. They’re Brits from the British Isles. “The whites of the Southern States of the U.S.A. understand the limitations of blacks very well as they have lived with blacks for many generations. The influx of blacks into the Yankee North is however much more recent and the overconfident idealists of the North are still trying everything in the hope of fully civilizing all their blacks. Poor fools!” Liberal Yankees are far less respectful toward Negroes than white Southerners are. This includes Jews, by the way, who do some of the loudest yapping about “discrimination.” And none of these white groups wants to live among Negroes but only the white Southerners will admit that—liberal white Yankees and liberal Jews won’t admit that about themselves (I single Jews out here because, again, they do some of the loudest, most simplistic, hypocritical, self-righteous yapping about “discrimination” but no one ever saw Jews actually seeking out Negro neighborhoods to live in—quite the contrary, I’m afraid). “I must emphasize here, however, that I am clearly speaking about groups and do NOT assume that what is true of the group is true of all individuals in that group.” That goes without saying, and all race-realists as well as all friends of MR.com agree with you one-hundred percent on that. Every individual without exception gets a fair chance and an initial presumption of parity, no matter what race, religion, etc., he be. “And note that what I say has nothing to do with skin-colour.” Ditto. Agreed by all I’m sure. 4
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 19, 2005, 11:25 PM | # “Obviously, we should all continue to treat individuals from different groups according to their individual merits but people who report that IN GENERAL they do not like members of a certain group are certainly not to my mind necessarily irrational, misled, deluded, ill-informed or ill-educated. They MAY be perfectly rational, balanced and well-informed.” Glad you said that because I’m not such a big fan of Hungarians, for example—though I always give each Hungarian I meet a fair chance to prove he’s not like some of the others I’ve met—if you know what I mean, John .... (was partly joking there ...) (only partly though ...) “And anyone who doesn’t want to live around Negro populations is just looking after his own skin! And the phenomenon of ‘white flight’ shows that most Americans understand that very well — regardless of what their expressed attitudes might be.” True on all counts. There’d be far less white flight if whites weren’t legitimately scared to death of Negro-on-white crime, which happens whenever and wherever whites and Negroes live in proximity to each other. Liberal whites will never admit they’ve fled blacks for that reason of course, because liberals fundamentally—almost by definition—are exceedingly dishonest and hypocritical. “So all the people of Eurasia should be relatively high-quality and the people of Africa, Asia and the Americas should be of lesser quality in important ways.” Do we need to look at this in terms of quality? Are we supposed to race-replace the Germans with the French or the Japanese with the Chinese? Of course not—yet no one’s going on about comparing these respective peoples quality-wise. Just leave people’s race alone—is that so hard? When the people of a country want their race replaced they’ll be sure to let the governent know. Until, stop trying to force it on them. “North African populations are Caucasian rather than negroid. It is for this reason that many geographers, anthropologists etc. treat Sub-Saharan Africa as a distinct entity.” Uhhh ... we kinda knew that, John ... (Where have you been? ...) “Real ethnic differences need not of course be aversive. People would hardly travel so much if they were. [...] I do nonetheless enjoy all kinds of ethnic diversity in a way that, I suppose, makes me an ideal citizen of a multicultural society like Australia.” A taste for exposure to ethnic diversity (one we all have, by the way) is properly satisfied not by changing the race of your country into something more exotic, John, but—as you say here—by foreign travel, leaving the ethnicity of your place of origin intact. “There’s no place like home”—right, John? Let’s make sure it’s still there to come back to, after our foreign travels are over, shall we? 5
Posted by jonjayray on May 20, 2005, 01:35 AM | # Scroob 6
Posted by Andrew L on May 20, 2005, 01:53 AM | # Yep that was a large effort , well done Fred. The old Tassy North and south, John is a old fashion Elitist debate, rich ones live in Hobart, and everyone else lives up north, ha, True.I have a sister in Hobart, and hear her waffle on about the north, like they are at war. ha 7
Posted by Braveheart on May 20, 2005, 03:18 AM | # North African populations are Caucasian rather than negroid. May I remind you of a comment that I already made earlier. Contact address: 8
Posted by JW Holliday on May 20, 2005, 06:45 AM | # Besides disagreeing with the overall tone of this post (ie, I think group distinctions are essential, and subjective “quality” does not obviate EGI), I am more concerned with what I see as a typical problem online with respect to discussions on race: complete subjectivity with no scientific rigor. For example, although Europe is the most homogenous of continents in a genetic sense, there are genetic differences within Europe, and yes, within the Northern European populations John mentions. Replacing English with Danes will indeed damage the genetic interests of English, and the two groups can, on average, be distinguished genetically (and also, via phenotype, given enough samples). The claim that Arabs are as “white” as many Europeans is bizarre. They certainly are NOT, on average, based on genetic studies, nor on (the more subjective) phenotype. As regards phenotype, for every Favre or Marlo Thomas (who are essentially levantine “Arabs” distinct from eg, Saudis or Iraqis) we can observe the 9/11 hijackers or the picture gallery in a recent Newsweek of varied “insurgent” leaders. The “they can pass” types of “Arabs” (a term almost as vague as “white”) are vastly outnumbered by the “alien and distinct” types, as any news report from, say, Iraq demonstrates. More objectively, gene assays can distinguish all groups from each other, and the various ethnies termed “Arab” are distinct from those ethnies indigenous to the European continent. 9
Posted by Effra on May 20, 2005, 07:10 AM | # I fear I must differ from most race realists in actively disliking and shunning the company of people not of my own race and class, whether or not they could be hypothesised to be of equivalent intelligence, social standing, fluency in English etc. I don’t care how laboriously and creditably assimilated they have become; I regard them as invaders and see no reason to have anything to do with them. The question of superiority does not enter into it. Difference is off-putting enough. Most people of my *own* kind are more or less tiresome. So why up the ante by introducing onself to aliens with whom one has to make an effort to get along? As Philip Larkin said, I could never agree that the world would be duller if everyone was like me. I would quite like the world to be full of people like Effra—then we’d have enough assumptions in common to get somewhere, instead of staying stuck on the starting grid of incompatible inheritances and values. Small communities full of kinfolks, married couples assortatively mated, peaceful nation states with monoracial populations, clubs whose membership is voluntary: the weight of evidence is against Babel and for the little platoons. Nor are these incomers as clued up about their new environment as someone born into it. Diversity is our greatest distraction. Ceteris paribus, a British doctor is always better than a foreigner in the NHS. I therefore think, contrary to received wisdom, that the future should consist of increasing isolation and autarchy between nations, and within them between classes. Social stratification based on IQ? I’m all for it, and I think social mobility was overrated too. A number of modern innovations—homeworking, hydroponics, virtual reality, pizza delivery—are admirable in inducing people to live more eremitically, with limited contacts with the rest of ‘humankind’, preferably by telecommunications. The idea that there is something intrinsically modern about shunting huge numbers of folks around the world and scrambling them up in ill-assorted job lots (‘multicultural societies’) seems to me a hangover from Ricardo’s Theory of Competitive Advantage, applied to the labour market. ‘East, West, Home’s Best’—an axiom one trusts that applied science will enable many more denizens of less favoured nations to live out in years to come. 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 20, 2005, 07:59 AM | # “For example, although Europe is the most homogenous of continents in a genetic sense, there are genetic differences within Europe, and yes, within the Northern European populations John mentions. Replacing English with Danes will indeed damage the genetic interests of English, and the two groups can, on average, be distinguished genetically (and also, via phenotype, given enough samples).” (—JW Holliday) I agree completely with this point and tried to make it in my comment also. It’s an important point, yet so simple. Look—the Chinese are, quality-wise, superior in a way to whites in that their average IQ is higher. If “quality” were the criterion to use for judging the OKness of replacing one race with another, therefore, it would seem perfectly fine to replace whites with Chinamen based on that criterion. But is that what whites want? Is that what any race wants? To get replaced? I kinda doubt that. I strongly suspect that, if such a proposal were put to a vote in a referendum after being explained very clearly to white people, white voters would express a preference for taking their chances at going through life with a lower average IQ rather than being replaced by the Chinese race, very fine and admirable though that race might be. Why has race-replacement of whites become all the rage, by the way? It’s not just all the rage, but you can get put in jail in some places where it’s going on if you speak out against it, and at the very least you will be slandered as a “racist” even though you may have nothing against non-whites. That’s the question: how is it that replacing whites with non-whites has now become “the thing to do”? PC isn’t really the explanation because there are forces behind the scenes imposing PC, forces which know exactly what they’re doing. I think it comes down to this “Tranzi” thing—meetings were held in the 70s, would be my guess, at which it was agreed that the rich all across the Anglosphere and Europe would, when all the pros and cons were added up, simply make more money going along with unrestricted non-white immigration into white nations, no matter the demographic consequences. People like Bush’s father were either at such meetings or at least agreed fully with the conclusions drawn (whence his “New World Order” claptrap which no one understood that time he put it into his speech at the end of the 80s but now everyone sees must have entailed, among other things, a decision to stand by passively as the elimination of the white race from the world proceeded). “The claim that Arabs are as ‘white’ as many Europeans is bizarre. They certainly are NOT, on average, based on genetic studies, nor on (the more subjective) phenotype.” Semites (Arabs, ancient Carthaginians, Jews to the extent they’re not Europeanized) are white but a different kind of white from Europeans. No? <objectively, gene assays can distinguish all groups from each other, and the various ethnies termed ‘Arab’ distinct from those ethnies indigenous to the European continent.” Right but I thought they were still a variety of white (Europeans being another variety of white). Prince Bandar the Saudi Ambassador to D.C., the beauty pageant winner whom Braveheart posted in the other thread (the girl from the Cape Verde Islands representing Belgium for Miss Universe), and maybe the late Anwar Sadat of Egypt (I’m not sure about Sadat), seem to have some visible Negro ancestry but so does Condi Rice and we don’t say because Rice and Colin Powell are Negroes that Americans aren’t white. Arabs like Sadam Hussein, Moammar Khadafi (spelling?), and Mohammad Atta, the 9-11 hijacker, are white though a different kind of white from Euros—no? Have I got that wrong? 11
Posted by Guessedworker on May 20, 2005, 08:14 AM | # Why has race-replacement of whites become all the rage, by the way? Because the end product of the secular religion of individual freedom is the destruction of race and nation. Actually, liberalism may have been the principal beneficiary of the decline of Christianity in the West. People ordinarily associate that decline with social pathologies such as bastardy, crime etc but liberalism is the parent of these things and as much a slayer of Christian faith as Darwinist science. 12
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 20, 2005, 09:00 AM | # I didn’t explain myself right in my comment of 11:59. In it, it may seem as if I’m saying that a nation of white-Negro mulattos is white. I didn’t mean to imply that (it isn’t white), but meant to say there’s a Semite race unmixed with Negroes (so, a race apart from people like the good Saudi Ambassador) which is white though a different kind of white from white-Euros (which is, incidentally, why I often put “white-Euros” in my posts—Euros aren’t the only whites, unless I’m mistaken). GW, I think you make an excellent point. What’s going on race-replacement-wise certainly has lots of different causes including the one you cite. 13
Posted by jonjayray on May 20, 2005, 09:07 AM | # None of you remotely cope with the fact that your parent population doesn’t care about your preoccupations. Most modern-day Anglos DON’T judge people by race. They take people as individuals and I have yet to hear any reason why they should not. There are HEAPS of Chinese around whom I respect more than many of the Anglo Yobs I see around. 14
Posted by JW Holliday on May 20, 2005, 09:07 AM | # Fred, this is why I really don’t like the term “white”; it is too vague. We can say that “Arabs” are Caucasians, and that there are different subtypes of Caucasians. I prefer divisions based upon autosomal genetic profiles. I understand that others may prefer physical anthropology. In either case, no one would mistake Saddam Hussein for any type of European. Favre and Thomas, probably yes, based on appearance. But a random sampling of pictures of Middle/Near Easterners would demonstrate that the Saddam types are in a clear majority - actually, eg, many Iraqis I see in news reports are “darker” and “less European-looking” than Saddam himself. We do need more genetic assays. I would love to know if there is a good correlation between gene assay data and phenotype. For instance, do the Favre/Thomas types have a “more European” genetic profile than do the more typical Middle Eastern-looking peoples of that region? I have no answer. I suspect that on average (with individual variation) that this will be the case. 15
Posted by Guessedworker on May 20, 2005, 09:12 AM | # No John. It is you who is not dealing with the “facts of the ground”. You and I belong to the same post-War generation and we both recall perfectly well the cohesive and rather beautiful society that obtained. You explain to yourself the difference, and when you have done with that you come back to me, and make the claim that just did. 16
Posted by jonjayray on May 20, 2005, 09:16 AM | # I guess I should have talked about the INTENSITY of group-feeling but I thought evertybody would be aware that even if you are dubious about some group in general, you still normally treat individuals in that group on their own merits. Probably the funniest example of that in my mind was a neo-Nazi I once knew whose best friend at the time was a very dark Pakistani! 17
Posted by jonjayray on May 20, 2005, 09:20 AM | # David 18
Posted by Guessedworker on May 20, 2005, 09:51 AM | # Ah, ethnic restaurants. The only beneficial aspect of immigration. On this we agree. 19
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 20, 2005, 09:52 AM | # I view it as being about resistance to forced national or community race-replacement, John, not about fair treatment of individuals regardless of race, religion, or country of origin. Everyone at this site agrees the latter is the proper and the assumed standard of behavior and goes utterly without saying. But the latter is not the question, so why insinuate it is? Race-replacement is the question. Can a country ensure fair treatment to all within its borders yet take steps to avoid outright race-replacement? Yes of course it can. Let’s stick to the subject, then. Look, there’s a young African Negro lad living in my virtually all-white town, having immigrated from Africa with his family six or seven years ago—just finishing high-school, so he’d be around 18. (He’s got a blond, blue-eyed white girlfriend by the way—gorgeous thing whom I see at the supermarket check-out where she works, he black as the ace-of-spades and as African-looking as they come, she a drop-dead-gorgeous snow-white Vermont small-town nordic beauty and one-hundred percent clueless about everything under the sun, I’ve no doubt.) Neither this young man personally nor his family is single-handedly replacing the white race in this country. Since my only concern is with the latter question, this lad individually is none of my concern and I would never dream of treating him any differently from any person of my own race (and his cross-racial relationship with his high-school sweetheart is his business and hers, none of my own). My gripe is entirely with President Bush, not in the slightest with this young man from Africa. ”[...] I thought evertybody would be aware that even if you are dubious about some group in general, you still normally treat individuals in that group on their own merits.” (—John the Yobbophobe of Oz) Yes I’m very glad you clarified that because, as you know, I’ve this thing about Hungarians that ... but we’ll leave that for another time ... however, rest assured I intend to treat all Hungarians I meet as individuals on their own merits ... 20
Posted by James Bowery on May 20, 2005, 10:03 AM | # If you look at the white separatism article in Wikipedia you’ll notice that the primary mode of attack against whites is the claim that white separatists don’t actually exist—they are all white supremacists, and that therefore they cannot be allowed to establish their own sovereignty. There is no way to get around this objection because it is made with all the sincerity of a rapist/abuser who refuses to let a woman go because she might get help and come back and lock him up. The multiculturalist supremacists are right to be fearful of white separatists because they have a guilty conscience about having taken so much from whites that whites are willing to abandon control of huge territories and doom huge portions of their populations to multicultural destruction just to be able to get away from them. Many see their only way out in the near term is to kill the witness to the crime while they have the witness tied up and under the gun. 21
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 20, 2005, 10:07 AM | # That sounds about right, James Bowery. I think you’ve got part of the picture. You’ve supplied a missing piece of the puzzle, so to speak. Good thinking. 22
Posted by Lurker on May 20, 2005, 10:15 AM | # Oh John, you broke one of the cardinal rules there mate! “Defend multiculturalism without reference to food, cuisine etc” Also regarding replacement of yobs with hardworking Chinese, Indians etc. In the UK you hear this all the time from apparent conservatives. They also include east Europeans in the pantheon of desireable incomers. But where does it end? 10% of the workforce, 20, 30? Each extra well behaved foreigner is another local on the scrapheap. Needless to say they dont include themselves in the list of unwanted Brits. I heard of a place recently where the proportion of east european workers (all hard workers) has reached a clear majority. And now they have appointed one of them as manager, whats the betting that now no Brits will be taken on in future? After all common language, culture, just common sense etc its just easier isnt it etc etc. Considerations which we are never allowed to apply to ourselves. 23
Posted by JW Holliday on May 20, 2005, 11:08 AM | # JJR: None of you remotely cope with the fact that your parent population doesnt care about your preoccupations. Most modern-day Anglos DON’T judge people by race. They take people as individuals and I have yet to hear any reason why they should not. There are HEAPS of Chinese around whom I respect more than many of the Anglo Yobs I see around.” Where to start here? First, I thought that the purpose of this blog was to articulate our “rightist” positions on issues, not to cater to the masses as to whatever the “ideological flavor of the month” is. John, we are all aware that many (most?) whites are aracial individualists who care nothing for group interests and “majority rights.” That’s why the blog was formed, was it not, to argue against that? Why should any of us accept what the masses - those who have been indoctrinated for decades - think about “diversity?” Our aim is to put forth an alternative. To me, what is important is what is right and true, not what the average Oprah-watching fat-ass thinks is popular. Second, you claim not to have heard a reason not to treat people as individuals. I assume you have not been following the debates here re: Salter and ethnic nepotism. Maybe I should summarize and paraphrase KMacD here: cooperating groups outcompete concatenations of individuals. Whites treat everyone as “individuals”, while non-whites think in group terms. By “coincidence” the West is in free fall. They win, we lose. Everyone talks about “the rise of China”, and with justification. The Chinese don’t treat people “as individuals”, they are highly nationalistic. Apparently, Dr. Oz considers Turkish ancestry to be an important factor in how he treats people (eg, opportunities to work with him, mentoring their careers). India with their “are you of Indian origin?” immigration policy considers race. Jews are a cohesive people, despite your claims to the contrary - they certainly vote cohesively in the USA, the biggest bloc voters in America being blacks and Jews. As soon as these peoples come into someone else’s nation, then they assert to the majority: “treat all as individuals”, which the majority stupidly does, as the minority practices the age-old dictum “do as I say, not as I do.” Individualism for thee, group 24
Posted by JW Holliday on May 20, 2005, 11:10 AM | # Reagan won the cold war abroad and lost it at home. His domestic “accomplishments” include: mass non-white immigration, amnesty for illegals, continuation of the welfare state and affirmative action, the explosive growth of political correctness and “diversity” mantras, etc. His “right-wing cowboy” persona (with no basis in actual fact) had the perverse effect of stimulating the left into action while putting the right to sleep. 25
Posted by bb on May 20, 2005, 11:50 AM | # I don’t see how successful nonwhites are bringing down the West. The U.S. is going downhill largely because of a combination of perverse self-hate and fiscal irresponsibility (continual growth of new wasteful programs like the prescription drug benefit, increasing K-12 spending beyond population and inflation in the face of massive waste and corruption in the K-12 education system, social service spending on immigrants making $6 an hour. This is of course not to mention plain old welfare such as subsidies to unwed mothers.)I also don’t think whites tend to see others as individuals—it goes far beyond that. At least amongst the political elite (including George W. Bush), whites view themselves as a group that has done unconscionable evil to others. The U.S. spends billions for nonwhites (such as in ethnic studies classes) to actively push for racialism. The importation of unsuccessful groups is also a major contributing factor to the decline of the West. The coupling of self hate and the importation of unsuccessful groups results in extreme perversity, i.e. bringing in low-performing groups and then *blaming whites* for their inevitable low performance. 26
Posted by Steve Edwards on May 20, 2005, 11:52 AM | # One mustn’t ignore the multicultural dialectic on immigration/national security, which goes something like this: Thesis: Multiculturalism is a wonderful thing, and “diverse” peoples should aspire (or be “made” to aspire) to live together in a glorious cosmopolitan utopia. Antithesis: Self-determination is a wonderful thing, as distinct peoples (like the Kosovars) must be allowed to secede to a state of independence and preserve their way of life. Synthesis: Multiculturalism and self-determination are both glorious ideals, that can exist side by side. By breaking up traditionally European societies and overturning large tracts of their land to foreign tribes, we can have multiculturalism under a byzantine federal bohemooth, while preserving regional “self-determination” for the secessionists, particularly if they are “oppressed peoples”. 27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 20, 2005, 01:33 PM | # “At least amongst the political elite (including George W. Bush), whites view themselves as a group that has done unconscionable evil to others.” (—Birch Barlow) Birch makes an important observation here: Bush himself—President Bush, “our” president—buys into all the Marxist claptrap about how beastly whites have been toward everyone on the planet these five centuries or however long it’s supposedly been. Understanding that fact about Bush explains a lot, completely apart from his preoccupation with pleasing the Tex-Mex drug/prostitution/smuggling kingpins and mafia-style Mex narco-oligarchs south of the border who’ve contributed very heavily to all his campaigns stretching back to his days as Texas governor, completely apart from his desire to Hispanify the U.S. in preparation for the continuation of his family dynasty which sure as hell won’t last much longer if the country stays majority white, completely apart from his Jimmy-Carter-style born-again Christianity in connection wherewith he sees replacing U.S. whites as an act of Christian self-abnegation guaranteed to win him a place in heaven in the hereafter, and so on. He actually believes the Marxist B.S. about whites being “evil” and needing to pass out of existence to atone, leaving the world stage to others not tainted with that stain. Steve Edwards has also got it right in his comment, by the way—he outlines exactly the way the other side intends for us to play the game. Thanks for that, Steve. 28
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 20, 2005, 03:51 PM | # John Ray, How many would be willing to fight and die for this multi-racial paradise that you love? Would it be possible for anyone to have any serious attachment to a country where the only common denominators are the basest - money, sex and all the pleasures and comforts? That doesn’t sound like a country to me. It seems more like the stock market. And that, it seems is what humanity needs to aspire to, the highest possible aspiration of man - make money. Incredible degradation and corruption of political ideas. 29
Posted by Andrew L on May 20, 2005, 04:35 PM | # I think these comments ought to be sent to all Political party headquarters, very , very convincing, and true, all points are well articulated, Some one print this section off and publish it. Exellent. 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 20, 2005, 04:36 PM | # “None of you remotely cope with the fact that your parent population doesn’t care about your preoccupations. Most modern-day Anglos DON’T judge people by race. They take people as individuals and I have yet to hear any reason why they should not. There are HEAPS of Chinese around whom I respect more than many of the Anglo Yobs I see around.” (—John R., the Scourge of the Antipodian Yobs) But our parent populations don’t want this innundation of races brought in to replace us, John. Have you seen any opinion polls on the subject? Not one that’s been straightforwardly worded has shown people in favor, and that applies to the past several years and more. If populations favored it why would there be a need for so many penalties, ranging from mild to draconian, for any who dare to question what’s going on? The problem is, governments won’t listen. Furthermore, even the tiny spark of ethnic self-awareness our people do show is a miracle, given the 12-year identity-killing brainwashing they’ve undergone in the “schools” (schools? K-through-12 government re-education camps is more like it). So, the original spirit of ethnic self-identity in their breasts must have been strong indeed to have survived that punishing propaganda. That right there says a lot about what they want and don’t want. Also, why don’t you see, John, that this isn’t about “not judging people by race” or “taking people as individuals” as you put it (both very admirable principles but no one here doubts them, so in that respect you’re preaching to the choir). It’s about opposing race-replacement policies forced by governments on reluctant populations. (You know, John, no race’s women need to have their group’s future population numbers assured by some other race’s women. White women are capable of having the babies the race needs for the future. If they aren’t having them at the moment it’s because government is exerting pressure on them not to.) Put that in your “taking people as individuals” pipe and smoke it, John. 31
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 20, 2005, 04:38 PM | # The political parties would use the print-outs to wrap fish in, Andrew. 32
Posted by Kubilai on May 20, 2005, 04:41 PM | # I fear I must differ from most race realists in actively disliking and shunning the company of people not of my own race and class, whether or not they could be hypothesised to be of equivalent intelligence, social standing, fluency in English etc. - Effra I cannot honestly say that I agree with Effra here. I do not actively dislike or shun other races, however I do fervently believe we do NOT need them here to save us. I know them for what they are and remarkably they are all very similar in thinking and behaviour. Some are very decent people, however that is not the point of all this. The point is WE have many decent people who are being systematically eliminated from the gene pool. None of you remotely cope with the fact that your parent population doesn’t care about your preoccupations. Most modern-day Anglos DON’T judge people by race. They take people as individuals and I have yet to hear any reason why they should not. There are HEAPS of Chinese around whom I respect more than many of the Anglo Yobs I see around. - JJR That is the entire point. The slow and steady decay of ethnic interests by Whites. While we are being so “tolerant”, “advanced”, “above it all”, the non-Whites are eating our friggen lunch as we sit and watch. Your utopia is untenable. We have this within us to be fair and treat people individually, no matter who they might be. This is not the case with other non-Whites. Nepotism and ethnic interests come to the fore early on in their dealings with anyone. You cannot change what is a deeply seated character trait by having them live in a Western country and watching Whites do it. This is analogous to the those scam infomercials stating “if you want to be rich, you have to watch and act like a rich person”. No lie, there was one like that. Does anyone believe that can happen? I don’t see how successful nonwhites are bringing down the West. - Birch LOL Then forget about it. 33
Posted by Svigor on May 20, 2005, 04:45 PM | # JJR, I do agree with you wholeheartedly on one thing, that the middle of this particular ground is lonely indeed. And to think that for the whole of my active career as a social science academic, my colleagues virtually universally believed that only maladjusted deviants were racists. They believe so because they have to. I was thinking about this again just yesterday; Liberalists have no other choice. They cannot allow discussion of the taboos, the merits, so they do what is logical; they assert that racism is pathology. This isn’t at all a luxury afforded by the dominance of liberalism in public discourse, but rather an absolute necessity demanded by the stakes and nature of the conflict. They have been invading and taking over one-another for so many thousands of years that the national gene pools must overlap almost totally. “Almost totally” isn’t totally. I can discern major NE groups fairly well much of the time. I’ve even guessed hybrids accurately (Italian-German, etc.) more often than not. When they emigrate to countries like the USA and Australia, their children cannot tell one-another apart and get on as well with one-another as they do with anybody else. I don’t see that as evidence of your claim. Rather than argue at length I’ll just state that I think even the most relatively small racial difference is important when it comes to human beings. We aren’t dogs or some other simple animal, we’re humans, far and away Earth’s dominant species. In a species this important, differences that would seem trivial in a lesser species become non-trivial. I do agree that the differences between NE populations are relatively far less salient than those between the major races of man. So for those who will see it, we now have mountains of evidence for the view that, as a group, negroids are just not fully civilizable. Only the disagreeableness of that conclusion could blind one to the evidence for it. But THAT conclusion, it seems to me, is important. Try couching it in leftist terms. Instead of “not fully civilizable,” try “naturally incompatible with white civilizational norms.” Some people like a sweet coating on their bitter pills. Now, the door is open for them to believe that blacks living in a white society are categorically unable to receive justice or parity. Separation becomes the right thing to do. the overconfident idealists of the North are still trying everything in the hope of fully civilizing all their blacks. Poor fools! That effort has not yet encompassed integration. The south was forced to integrate, the north never did. I take a dim view of the “idealism” of the north. I think it’s more likely self-deceptive or cynically aware racial huckstering that dominates Yankee thinking, with a thin social veneer of PC Multicultism (this last because it costs little in the segregation of the north). Scroob: Why has race-replacement of whites become all the rage, by the way? Devil’s Advocate: because that’s where the money is. (Y)ou will be slandered as a “racist” even though you may have nothing against non-whites. Liberalists run a greater risk than they know with their constant smears of “racist” and “anti-Semite.” They don’t just run the risk of bastardizing their own rhetorical weapons to point of uselessness, they run the risk of making “racism” and “anti-Semitism” the duty of all decent people. Effra: Lol, well said. I agree. Ceteris paribus, a British doctor is always better than a foreigner in the NHS. Hehe, simple logic of the sort that makes Liberalists shake in their boots. 34
Posted by Svigor on May 20, 2005, 04:45 PM | # JJR: Because the Chinese (and whomever) DO BLOODY WELL JUDGE PEOPLE BY RACE and they’ll turn our countries into China (or wherever) given the chance. Duh. Racism is the default state, and what you and yours don’t remotely cope with is the fact that unilateral disarmament and suicide by proxy are close relatives. How does your stupid propositional society deal with Chinese espionage, John? How does it deal with the Mexican reclamation project? How does it deal with ethnic and racial realities, John? It doesn’t. You are correct, fifth columnists have indeed suckered the white populations of the world into a very dangerous mass delusion. You seem content to blame the victim and throw on the mantle of the extended phenotype. I’d rather blame the perpetrator, alert the victim, and fix the problem. Birch: The importation of successful groups IS the importation of unsuccessful groups. Every group has its unsuccessful proportion, and that proportion is inevitably patronized by its successful proportion (whites being the exception that proves the rule). 35
Posted by Svigor on May 20, 2005, 04:49 PM | # JJR, how do you, as a conservative, square your belief that “(e)thnicity and group membership is one of the great preoccupations of the human race ... possibly second only to sex,” with your belief that with your belief that “(m)ost loyalty-provoking group differences are either imaginary, trivial or evanescent BUT SOME ARE NOT,” and more importantly, with your non-ideational explication of conservatism 3 posts above? 36
Posted by Svigor on May 20, 2005, 04:59 PM | # Those who insist on dealing with outgroup members strictly as individuals are deluding themselves. If you can wade through some of the liberalist muck, many of the arguments I would make are made here: http://jewishtribalreview.org/shamir014.htm It’s difficult for me to articulate my own version because I haven’t really given this issue enough thought yet. 37
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 20, 2005, 05:14 PM | # Why has race-replacement of whites become all the rage, by the way? Devil’s Advocate: because that’s where the money is. (—Svigor) I think this is right. There’s an international class of rich and super-rich who see race-replacement of whites as meaning bigger and more brightly-flashing dollar signs for them, with no “down side” because they don’t live in the same country we ordinary folk do, no matter what “nationality” they may be. As some Frenchman once said (I forget who, exactly), “The rich live in another country.” The Warren Buffetts, the Bill Gateses, the William F. Buckleys, the Ross Perots, the Ted Turners, the Donald Trumps, the Sam Waltons, the Boone Pickenses, the Prince Charleses, the Queen Elizabeths have virtually no prospect—run absolutely no “risk”—of ever really and truly coming in contact with the day-to-day downside of the race-replacement they encourage either actively or by doing nothing to question it. They only see that there are more dollars in it for them and less hassle if they stand by and let it go to completion without questioning or interfering. The Prince of Lichtenstein married a non-white Panamanian woman, incidentally. That country being a principality, he’s effectively the equivalent of its king. I don’t stick my nose into other people’s relationships, but here you have a whole racial tradition of an ancient European nation involved symbolically, and he should have been told by his court that, analogously to the case of King Edward who wanted to marry Wallis Simpson, he’d have to abdicate if he chose this non-white woman for his bride. 38
Posted by Svigor on May 20, 2005, 05:34 PM | # This is where the so-called “fourth estate” is supposed to step in as a “watchdog” and heap opprobrium on the wayward elites. Of course in truth (as was inevitable) the “fourth estate” has become the first estate and the “watchdog” has been replaced with a fox that is currently raiding the henhouse. So, the upshot is we have to short-circuit or bypass the first estate’s natural role as thoroughly as is possible. 39
Posted by Svigor on May 20, 2005, 05:35 PM | # I’d meant to add that public opprobrium is anathema to the elite class, and actually largely trumps their power in large enough doses. 40
Posted by JW Holliday on May 20, 2005, 06:13 PM | # The usual suspects (Birch, for example) express a lack of understanding of how successful nonWhites can bring down the West. Actually, it is quite simple - they are not Westerners, and their presence results in a displacement of people of the West (those of European extraction) with others. You know. “Taxi Driver” is a “sucessful” movie, a 4-star flick. But if someone wants to watch “Star Wars”, then replacing SW with TD is not going to ‘cut it.’ Likewise, no matter how “successful” they are, individuals such as this: http://tinyurl.com/7rjtm Perhaps such an individual may be “mating stock” for Asian-loving soft white males, but I’d like to not have such speciments in my living space. Thank you. 41
Posted by jonjayray on May 20, 2005, 06:41 PM | # Such a lot to reply to! I might get time later on. Meanwhile: “the West is in free fall” is absurd. The West has never been more dominant or prosperous or more humane 42
Posted by Kubilai on May 20, 2005, 06:59 PM | # The West has never been more dominant or prosperous or more humane - jjr Maybe John, however what are we comparing this dominance, prosperity, and humanity against? India? China? The Middle East? Africa? A bit of a strawman on your part, don’t you think? Putting all this dominance, prosperity, and humanity aside, the REAL point is the West is surely no longer remaining to BE the West. Soon, within our lifetimes, the West will be a hodgepodge of India, China, Africa, and the Middle East, while the “West” will be a memory due to a lack of White group interests. Crystal clear to me. 43
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 20, 2005, 07:04 PM | # The West has never been more dominant or prosperous or….... Like Rome before the collapse for instance? 44
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 20, 2005, 07:14 PM | # The West has never been more dominant or prosperous or….... As illustrated by Iraq. The world’s greatest superpower with more weapons and better technology than all armies of humanity put together being bled to death every day by a bunch of pesky guerillas armed with no more than the Koran and an AK 47. How long will this dominance last? The bad signs are all there - open borders, multiculturalism, white guilt, political correctness out of control, the coming police state, collapsing birth rates, the death of a core culture….....and what do our great conservatives do? Check GDP figures and rejoice at “economic growth” powered by easy money and artificially created low interest rates. 45
Posted by JW Holliday on May 20, 2005, 07:25 PM | # JJR: “The West has never been more dominant or prosperous or more humane “ America is headed for racial balkanization. The economy is being outsourced and the remaining jobs are in competition with low-paid immigrants. The “humanity” of America is on display in Abu Gharib and Fallujah, and the “dominance” of the West is typified by the increasingly accurate descriptions of a “Chinese century.” I don’t know about Australia, but I can tell you that in America the lifestyle (house, kids, car) that at one time was sustainable on a one-income family now requires both spouses working. No time for kids, but the welfare underclass has both the children and the tax money. American dominance is a result of temporary military superiority, not by a “service economy” hundreds of billions of dollars in debt to Asian creditors. Considering the cultural and political gulf between America and Europe, I’m not sure what this “West” is anymore that is so “dominant.” Is it the childless Germans and their Turkish guests? Spain and their legalized illegals, stabbing Spaniards in the streets? Paris, where areas look like North African ghettoes? The UK where the torsoes of Negro children float down the Thames? Or is it the America of rap music, overweight fat-assed ignoramouses, and an economy that produces nothing except Hollywood trash, Big Macs, and endless debt? I’m sure that Romans, circa 350 AD thought that ‘Rome has never been so prosperous.’ Indeed. 46
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 20, 2005, 07:40 PM | # That was very well said, JW. I agree, that statement of John R.‘s was a bit of a jaw-dropper. Talk about having one’s head in the sand ... 47
Posted by jonjayray on May 20, 2005, 07:51 PM | # I suppose one point I should always make is that I speak from the perspective of living in Oz. Australia’s SELECTIVE imigration policies do go a considerable way towards ensuring that we get here people whom Anglos broadly approve of. So Australian culture is not at all threatened by immigrants. The biggest cultural loss we suffer is from AMERICAN culture supplanting Australian thinking. An actually dangerous example is that 40% of Australians (TV watchers, obviously) think that our emergency phone no. is 911 when it in fact is 000. And the loss of Australian language is saddening to me. I can say things to my equally Australian girlfriend like “Let’s hit the Chinkies” and be immediately understood (translation: Let’s dine at the Chinese restaurant). The great Australian slanguage is MUCH more vivid and expressive than standard English but a lot of it is unknown to young Australians now. It is always a relief when I am able to “talk Australian” after all the standard English I have to write on this blog and elsewhere. 48
Posted by jonjayray on May 20, 2005, 08:08 PM | # America’s difficulties in Iraq are created by American kindness and humanity. A few nukes on the Muslim world would have solved the Islamic problem long ago. But that kindness is also a source of strength. It creates a remarkable degree of unity and dominance of Anglo culture for a nation that is so multiracial. Which in turn is a large part of the reason why you have heaps of blacks, Hispanics and even Muslims fighting for American aims in the American armed forces in Iraq. America has faced the most difficult possible of demographic challenges—coping with large numbers of Africans in its midst—and done so both humanely and broadly successfully. And I have lived just down the road from Watts in Los Angeles so don’t tell me that I don’t know what I am talking about. Christian values appear weak to others but they are in the end the strongest thing of all. From an ethnic point of view America should be one huge mess but it is in fact the world’s cultural and economic powerhouse. 49
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 20, 2005, 08:09 PM | # “The biggest cultural loss we suffer is from AMERICAN culture supplanting Australian thinking.” (—John R.) This is of course happening in Europe also and that’s a damned shame. All countries must try to screen out rotten American pop “culture”: must utterly reject it, send it straight back to the garbage heap, the compost heap, the manure pile whence it came and where it belongs. Just turn it back when it comes knocking on your door and tell the American nihilists who produce and try to market this excrement, “NO! No, you don’t! Out of here with that crap! That’s not coming in my country, of that you can be sure—over my dead body!” To all countries: DO NOT LET YOURSELVES BE INVADED BY U.S. POP CULTURE! We in the U.S. can’t STAND the stuff but we can’t seem to get rid of it—it’s like genital herpes or leprosy or antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis or something. We’re stuck with it BUT NOT YOU, for God’s sake. JUST REJECT IT IF YOU WANT TO LIVE! JUST SAY NO! DON’T IMPORT IT! Your kids whine that they want MTV? Give them a spanking and send them to bed with a good Bach or Wagner CD playing or something. JUST SAY NO TO IT! IT IS THE PUREST NOTHINGNESS. 50
Posted by jonjayray on May 20, 2005, 08:14 PM | # Someone asked me what would become of the yobs if we let other people in to do their jobs. Ideally I would like all drugs legalized so the yobs could just bomb themselves out all day and not bother other people. And don’t think my dislike of the yobs stems from my being personally unable to deal with them. I was a cab-driver operating out of Kings Cross in Sydney (KC is Sydney’s red light diostrict) for a couple of years and escaped completely unscathed and you have to be VERY good at dealing with yobs to achieve that 51
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 20, 2005, 08:14 PM | # “a nation that is so multiracial.” Don’t rush things, John—we’re still about 75% white. And if our side gains traction we’ll drive that percentage right back up to where it used to be, right around 90. When that happens we’ll have you over for a big party in Vermont, John. 52
Posted by jonjayray on May 20, 2005, 08:19 PM | # ” I’ve this thing about Hungarians that ... but we’ll leave that for another time ... however, rest assured I intend to treat all Hungarians I meet as individuals on their own merits ... “ Fred 53
Posted by jonjayray on May 20, 2005, 08:25 PM | # Ok 54
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 20, 2005, 08:56 PM | # I’d rather deal with white yobs in Kings Cross, John, than some of these non-whites in the neighborhoods they’ve created in big cities. When I was in my twenties (in the 70s) I stayed a while with a friend in Hamburg’s St. Pauli district and I can tell you the Reeperbahn was safer at three AM than anywhere in Manhattan was at twelve noon. (I’m from New York City.) The same went for Köln where I lived around 1980—I used to walk through what was supposed to be “THE most dangerous neighborhood” Köln had to offer, every Friday and Saturday night for months in the wee hours of the morning because the trolley service ended around eleven, while I used to stay downtown till later than that in the clubs, bars, and so on, so had to walk all the way back from the center to where I lived on the perimeter of Koln, and my pedestrian route happened to go exactly through “the most dangerous part of town”—I couldn’t avoid it. Same deal—the worst Cologne had to offer at two and three AM was safer than the safest neighborhood Manhattan had to offer at high noon. The difference was the difference between whites and non-whites. The fact was, in Hamburg and in Cologne there WAS NO DANGEROUS PART OF TOWN. There simply wasn’t, because there weren’t non-whites. OK there was a small smattering of Turks. They wouldn’t have bothered a mouse (I don’t know about now, but this was then). People in European big cities JUST DID NOT KNOW WHAT A DANGEROUS CITY WAS. The difference was ... three guesses (non-whites, for those in Rio Linda). 55
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 20, 2005, 09:13 PM | # John, in re your comment of 12:19, I’m Catholic (was never confirmed because I got yanked out of it around the 4th or 5th grade of elementary school and brought up thereafter as an atheist but did get to make my First Communion in second grade I think it was, and I found my way back to Christianity in the years after college. I consider myself Catholic. I don’t practice, though I am a believer in Christianity, God, and Jesus Christ (I don’t really know how to practice Catholicism. My wife does and could show me, but I just haven’t had her do that for me yet.) I have some Jewish ancestry at the grandparent level—half, to be precise—and I also happen to have Jewish in-laws and nieces and a nephew who are Jewish, my two sisters having married Jews. My ancestry is mixed German, Austrian, and Russian; Catholic, Russian Orthodox, and Jewish.) Yes, as a matter of fact, the Hungarians I had in mind whom I was joking about there were all Hungarian Jews. Nice in their own way of course, but not my cup of tea, especially. But I WAS largely joking about that 56
Posted by Kubilai on May 20, 2005, 09:31 PM | # I suppose one point I should always make is that I speak from the perspective of living in Oz. Australia’s SELECTIVE imigration policies do go a considerable way towards ensuring that we get here people whom Anglos broadly approve of. So Australian culture is not at all threatened by immigrants. - jjr This is the same reasoning that is used for Canadian immigration and why there are no major conflicts, however it is a fallacy in Canada as it is in Oz. Canadians, for the most part, are docile, conflict avoiding, arrogant, no-it-alls that have a major inferiority complex and covert semi-disdain whenever they speak of the US. The reason they have had little problems with immigrants THUS FAR is that they look the other way and are not “gunslingers” as are our American neighbors. There has always been some discomfort with immigrants throughout Canada’s history and there has been no shortage of discrimination against Eastern and Southern European immigration in the beginning. All these European immigrants assimilated into a massive European derived nation. Then came the 80s with Hong Kong immigration that sent prices of real estate skyrocketing. Again, these immigrants met with some degree of discrimination though not nearly as much as the previous waves. They are also the “model immigrants”, namely quiet, respectful, prosperous, and with means. They are not overtly confrontational yet they work like dogs to achieve. Then came South Asians. Less “model-like” and more vocal. Laws started changing around this time, I believe, with less tolerance towards “discrimination”. In the 90s we got a slew of Jamaicans and Africans as well as the constant influx of South Asians. Now, there is NO tolerance given to Whites. White flight is in full effect. There are enclaves of White neighborhoods in Toronto that are the most expensive in the city, province, and maybe Canada. In essence, we have islands of Whites in a sea of third worlders. Our taxes have gone through the roof and yes, I am familiar with the taxes in Europe and Scandinavia. The money is used to keep the place looking “new” and “clean” as well as paying an ungodly amount to the immigrants so they can “live” and most live better than native White Canadians with no or little work. There is NO assimilation any longer and there is no one asking them to assimilate. There is no one that is ALLOWED TO ASK anyway. Hate laws in Canada can give a run for the money to any hate laws world wide. Whites bitch and moan in private and in certain company, yet they do NOT DARE speak in public because they WILL be crucified. That is how the peace is kept. Whites are losing their country and identity and are not allowed to speak about it. I would venture to guess that Oz is very very similar and on the same path as Canada. Canada is a mere footnote in history now. They do not have the spine to fight this off. A lot of Liberal Whites love it anyway. The only thing left and this may become a reality is the balkanization of the country into several distinct independent states or possibly an amalgamation with the US. Not a foregone conclusion, however Quebec has always wanted to secede due to their Anglo-Franco reasons and now the western province of Alberta, which is staunchly conservative, is fed up with the annual raping it gets in order to feed the rest of the parasitic country. I’d be lying if I said that I knew how it would all play out. Stay tuned. 57
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 21, 2005, 12:53 AM | # Excellent summary, Kub. As you know, the States are in the same boat you Canucks are in; maybe worse—but we can still win this thing. Reverse pressure is mounting. Individuals with sense and backbone are coming to the fore and giving the race-replacers back-talk for the first time. The resistance is internet-driven, of course, and must’ve expanded, what—tenfold in just the past six months? Something like that. Our side’s volume is growing by leaps and bounds. We need to hold ourselves together and just keep plugging away, and never lose heart! We can and will win this thing! 58
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 21, 2005, 05:16 AM | # Which in turn is a large part of the reason why you have heaps of blacks, Hispanics and even Muslims fighting for American aims in the American armed forces in Iraq. John, A disproportionate number of the COMBAT troops in the US army are white. Also, they are disproprotionately from the South. Why? Because that is where a sense of community still exists. The racial hodge podge that you admire so much and think is such a source of strength is actually the seed of America’s fall. Unfortunately, you may not be around to see it when it happens. But happen it will. Its a matter of time. 59
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 21, 2005, 05:24 AM | # Which in turn is a large part of the reason why you have heaps of blacks, Hispanics and even Muslims fighting for American aims in the American armed forces in Iraq. And the other factor that you forget easily is that a lot of people enlist in the military for money. This means that a disproportinate number of enlistees are going to be lower middle class or worse. And that means automatically that you will have a lot of Hispanics and Blacks. If patriotism was that strong in the US, why is enlistment falling off now? Its fallen by 42 percent. The Military is clueless about how to get it back up. Why aren’t more people joining up? If a large number of people were previously joining the Army for patriotic reasons they would be joining it now just the same. But they aren’t because from an economic perspective it makes less sense now with a WAR on. And hence greater risk. Its not worth it money wise. This wasn’t the case in the nineties when the only conflicts you had were little distractions like Haiti. 60
Posted by Effra on May 21, 2005, 07:09 AM | # I see johnjayray is honest enough to admit that his tolerance of non-whites in Australia is conditioned by the selective immigration policy which ensures that most are polite, hard-working orientals rather than violent, parasitical blacks. (IIRC, Australia’s native low-IQ folks tended to disappear or be corralled at a somewhat earlier date;-)) However, I still consider that most whites, like anybody, prefer to live mainly among their own kind, and that unease grows with the numbers of the infiltrators. Opposing non-Caucasoid mass immigration, Enoch Powell used to say that if millions of Germans were to embed themselves in England, he would be just as alarmed, though not necessarily for the same reasons. In America—as in Britain according to Commission for Racial Equality findings—most whites do not have many or any non-white friends, and vice versa. Interracial breeding is mostly confined to the underclass. Indigenes are compelled to rub shoulders with incomers at work and in the market place and streets; and since we whites are brought up to be polite and self-effacing, we try to get along sociably with these strangers. But we do not choose to know them better than that, and increasingly we remove ourselves to places where the more objectionable kinds of immigrant are only occasional visitors, as our servants. I would add to my earlier comment about preferring most people to be like me, that the apothegm about travel broadening the mind seems to me, from observation of frequent travellers, unproven at best. A fortiori dubious is the corollary: that we would all benefit from having more foreigners imported to mingle with us on our home ground, whether we asked for them to come here or not. 61
Posted by Kubilai on May 21, 2005, 10:44 AM | # Hi Fred, I have noticed the slowly changing attitude with more and more Whites in the US as they have become more vocal, which is a good thing to see. In the US, there are enough freedoms built in the US Constitution that allows for this and allows for the eventual taking back of the country if that is our destiny. The same can be said of Europe, though for not the exact same reasons. Europe is small and political parties can make changes rather quickly, I believe. That, coupled with Europe being an ancient homeland gives people the right to demand that it remain a homeland. Canada is spineless and a “nation of immigrants”. I do not hold out any hope for Canada. I believe Oz is in the same mentality boat as Canada, though I have only heard this from others and have never been able to determine this myself. BTW, as an aside, I’m American and only happen to live in Canada for what feels like an eternity. Effra, I just wanted to clarify what I said about your statement re: shunning and disliking non-Whites. I do not want you to think that I view your attitude as wrong and if it feels right for you, then by all means do it. I just do not think it is necessary to commit a lot of personal feelings to actively direct at non-Whites. All our goals are pretty much the same. Sorry if I offended as I re-read my post again. 62
Posted by Guessedworker on May 21, 2005, 03:49 PM | # John, There is no need to steer a middle way on the issue of race. This is just muddled and dangerous thinking. It is incumbent upon any people to defend its homeland. And that’s really all there is to say about it in terms of principle. If a people decides that it has no natural duty to survive or that all peoples are the same and should be welcomed to come and live with it, it will be duly dispossessed and die of deracination. And it makes no difference what the IQ, politeness or hard-working habits of the invaders are. All that matters is that they are NOT the native people. This is so fundamental and utterly beyond dispute I can only conclude that otherwise conservative-thinking individuals who construct personally bearable methods of killing off their own race have become, as JW says, extended phenotypes of the invader. This is a dog-eat-dog business, John. It’s not nice. It’s not open to change. If you offer yourself up to be eaten, the other dog will certainly eat you. Look at who you really love, and particularise on that absolutely firm foundation. 63
Posted by Svigor on May 21, 2005, 03:52 PM | # Tactically and strategically you’re perfectly right Kubilai. Outside of Europe whites live mostly in multicultural societies, and must learn to navigate those seas like veterans. That involves a polite smile and hello in public to the other. 64
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 21, 2005, 04:16 PM | # “And it makes no difference what the IQ, politeness or hard-working habits of the invaders are. All that matters is that they are NOT the native people. This is so fundamental and utterly beyond dispute [...]” (—Guessedworker, 7:49 PM) This is it, right here: the kernel, the nucleus of the whole question, right here. This is the fundamental statement of it, the central issue, in simple words. And it’s true that this is utterly and completely beyond dispute by any conceivable argumentation. No one—no one on earth—can argue against this. This is pure, obvious truth, and it’s why victory for our side is inevitable: truth can’t be kept down, but wins in the end. It always does. Our turn is coming. We are going to win this. 65
Posted by jonjayray on May 21, 2005, 05:47 PM | # ” All that matters is that they are NOT the native people” But Britain itself is a huge ethnic mix. The Anglo-Saxons drove out most of the native people 1500 years ago. Should the A-Ss go back to the Baltic? England is proof that ethnic mixing can be beneficial 66
Posted by jonjayray on May 21, 2005, 05:49 PM | # And in Oz and USA most of the ethnic mixing has been seamless. The blacks will never fit in fully of course but that just illustrates what I originally said—that only SOME ethnic differences matter 67
Posted by jonjayray on May 21, 2005, 05:52 PM | # I remember an old friend—the cheerful Rimvydas Skeivys. Not at all Anglo. He is a blond blue-eyed Lithuanian who grew up in Australia. No problem with ethnic mixing there. 68
Posted by Guessedworker on May 21, 2005, 05:53 PM | # I must get myself a cam and prevail upon you to do the same, John. Then I can check for the sly grin as you caress the words from the keyboard. I assume you don’t actually require me to flatten this argument. Just accept that I can, as can you ... and move on to a more substantial reply to my comment. 69
Posted by jonjayray on May 21, 2005, 06:05 PM | # I think of another old friend—Dino Tenni—born in Australia of Northern Italian parents. And who would not like a mother like he had—the wonderful, warm Nina? I think I eventually met half the population of the village where the family came from—Villa di Tirano. When Italians emigrate, half the village tends to emigrate together. I cannot think of finer people than those. How can I ever forget the “mangiare, mangiare” hospitality of so many fine Italian families? And that is why “ho studiato Italiano a scuola”. Both I and Australia are so much richer for the Italian presence here 70
Posted by jonjayray on May 21, 2005, 06:15 PM | # And after two world wars, English hatred for “Krauts” was understandable but I think of Dieter Kahlert who lives over the road from me. Through hard work he is a rich man but he is a mechanic by trade and has been keeping my cars on the road from many years. A ruddy-skinned, kind and cheerful man who is as fine a man as any I know. So should I think ill of Germans coming to my country? Many have and I am glad they did. Australia is a better place for it. Certainly a lot more efficient for it. And I like efficiency. 71
Posted by jonjayray on May 21, 2005, 06:17 PM | # Und darum habe ich auch Deutsch studiert in der universitaet 72
Posted by Kubilai on May 21, 2005, 06:17 PM | # Dude, your Lithuanian and Italian friends/examples are both EURO-PEAN as are the settlers of Oz. What kind of gibberish are you talking about here? All three peoples you mentioned are all cut from the same corner of the proverbial cloth and I see no reason why they would have a hard time assimilating in Australia. Is this a joke or something? Actually, you are the second Australian that I have run across that has made a significant point to call the different European immigrants in Australia as “diversity”. Do they teach you that hogwash at school? 73
Posted by jonjayray on May 21, 2005, 06:27 PM | # And then I think of the Dutchmen here who have made life for me better and more cheerful…. Will Visser, Eddie Gobel, Tom Bergmans etc 74
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 21, 2005, 06:52 PM | # It’s willful, Kub—he likes needling people. He understands full well what the argument is but he’ll be damned if he’ll come out and admit that. There are times when you just have to overlook his comments. Pretend he never wrote them—they don’t exist… Better for your blood pressure ... 75
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 21, 2005, 06:56 PM | # Kubilai, When reading John Ray, you’ve got to read between the lines. In England, we have an expression - “taking the piss”. John likes “taking the piss”. He really does. Which is why he keeps putting up more outrageous arguments and then keeps chuckling as we pounce on them to flatten them. Then he produces more….....Isn’t that right John? Guessedworker, do I see a pattern here in your friend’s behaviour? 76
Posted by Kubilai on May 21, 2005, 07:01 PM | # Thanks Fred. Now I understand why some here have a short fuse with Johnny Jay. I guess this happens on a regular basis. 77
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 21, 2005, 07:01 PM | # Und darum habe ich auch Deutsch studiert in der universitaet Ich spreche ein kleines Deutsch auch 78
Posted by Guessedworker on May 21, 2005, 07:03 PM | # Blimey, John, I don’t believe it. You really are serious! You really think that this stuff about Germans and Dutchmen confirms your argument and not mine. Actually, there are three honest ways by which you may win this debate, John, and they are:- a) to deny genetic distance, or At the moment you are stating the simple and widely-known fact that Sub-Saharan Africans are more distanced from other human populations than any of those populations are from each other. Therefore, you eliminate Sub-Saharan Africans from polite society. But you claim that all the rest are interchangeable if only their IQ is sufficiently high. Have a look at this desi board:- http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/001567.html Scroll down and you will find our clever Bangaldeshi friend, Razib, explaining his ethnic genetic interest to his Indian pals. Now, I have been accusing Razib and godless of hypocrisy because GNXP denies EGI (in effect, just for Europeans). But what do I find here? My, my ... EGI does apparently exist and is perfectly understood by an IQ 130+ Bangladeshi who you would welcome as your polite, assimilable new friend. Not such a friend after all, it appears. John, you’ve got to tackle the distance factor and EGI if your otherwise rather RDNE argument is to float. Personal anecdotes won’t do it. How about it? 79
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 21, 2005, 07:04 PM | # Ich mag Deutsch. Gute Leute. Einige von meinen besten Freunden. 80
Posted by Kubilai on May 21, 2005, 07:05 PM | # Phil, Doesn’t this strike everyone as a grand old waste of time? ‘Scuse me while I “take A piss”. 81
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 21, 2005, 07:09 PM | # Guessedworker, Those “desi” types are among the most shameless and brazen you will come across. They will speak about pursuing their ethnic interests in the West, while simultaneously and seamlessly denigrating the British Empire. Something to be seen to be believed. It just demonstrates again, for those willing to take notice, that “cognitive elitism” is excellent cover for all kinds of other agendas. As they say, “Blood is thicker than water”. 83
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 21, 2005, 07:13 PM | # I should add: The rhetoric at GNXP is actually quite muted compared to what you see at “Sepia Mutiny”. Their real colours begin to show. May be the doubters here on the “Cognitive eltiism” question should visit that site regularly and see what is being said. Its a good education and quite revealing. 84
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 21, 2005, 07:15 PM | # Doesn’t this strike everyone as a grand old waste of time? It does to me. The only thing about John that is more remarkable than his irrationality is his persistence. 85
Posted by jonjayray on May 21, 2005, 08:20 PM | # Phil 86
Posted by jonjayray on May 21, 2005, 08:21 PM | # LOL 87
Posted by jonjayray on May 21, 2005, 08:30 PM | # I am actually trying to get people to the point where they acknowledge certain racial differences. Euphemisms about “the native population” and “us” won’t do. It seems to me that Northern European populations (including their offshoots in Northern France and Northern Italy) are essentially the same. But Arabs and Africans are not. Which is what I said at the beginning, of course. So as a policy matter, I would regard totally free immigration/emigration among Northern European populations as not reasonably opposable. For other populations Australia’s selective immigration rules seem reasonable. 88
Posted by jonjayray on May 21, 2005, 08:38 PM | # Dave 89
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 21, 2005, 08:43 PM | # Eigentlich sollte man “ein WENIG Deutsch” sagen Ihr Deutsch ist besser. 90
Posted by jonjayray on May 21, 2005, 08:47 PM | # The major contention among people who haunt this blog is that there is a need for immigration restrictions. I wholly agree with that. Most Australians do. And we have a government that puts such a policy into practice. I must admit that I feel sorry for Brits and Yanks who have to put up with large-scale non-selective immigration. But if America can cope with a large black population, with its well-known social pathologies, they can cope with anything. 91
Posted by bb on May 21, 2005, 09:52 PM | # GW: “There is no need to steer a middle way on the issue of race. This is just muddled and dangerous thinking.” Really? It seems perfectly possible, indeed ideal, to recognize differences in group averages in traits like IQ, as well as the threats posed by the ideology of the NAACP, MALDEF, modelminority, etc. without degenerating into a tribalist, third world like ideology. Why should I cut myself off from my nonwhite friends and people like GodlessCapitalist to unite with poorly educated whites who I have little in common with outside of European appearance? 92
Posted by bb on May 21, 2005, 09:56 PM | # “But if America can cope with a large black population, with its well-known social pathologies, they can cope with anything.” I am not so sure of that. There is a limit to how big an underclass any country can take, especially in the face of increasingly leftwing politics . The aging of the U.S. population certainly isn’t going to make it any easier to take poorly performing groups either. 93
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 21, 2005, 11:15 PM | # “LOL I must confess that being bad for Scroob’s blood-pressure does amuse me more than it should” That was harsh, John ... and to think of all the nice things I’ve said about Australia, too! Why, someone online even asked me if you were Crocodile Dundee and I said yes just to make you look good in their eyes ... and here’s what I get for all my trouble ... “without degenerating into a tribalist, third-world-like ideology. Why should I cut myself off from my nonwhite friends and people like GodlessCapitalist” (—bb) Will everyone have a look at Birch here, condemning “tribalist third-world-like ideology” while so generously sticking up for his tribalist third-world friends? Your non-white friends are all third-world tribalists for their own tribes’ interests, Birch (GC being one of the biggest)—have a look at the comments on that message board GW linked a few posts back. You’re a complete fool and haven’t a fricking idea what in the goddamn hell you’re talking about but you’re young so people here show you a degree of forbearance. Incidentally everyone, I assume “a desi” is a slang term for Indian Subcontinental? Or am I way off? Can anyone correct me? 94
Posted by Kubilai on May 22, 2005, 02:02 AM | # Birch, you’ve become a charicature of “mini-me” from the Austin Powers movies. In your case, I’ll call you mini-GC. LOL In all seriousness, you are nothing more than GC’s mouthpiece. Hate the Blacks and love the Browns, ‘cause their smart. Also, as a White looking for intellectual equals or even superiors, you have been quite underwhelming here in your interaction with all us “poorly educated” Whites. What’s up with that? Don’t you find that a bit odd? Here’s a secret Birch, there are a WHOLE LOT of other smart Whites out here in the Western world. You just have to look. Who has you so convinced that only Asians, South and East, are smart? I find most of them obtuse and very one-dimensional. Only a very few are intellectual and socially adroit. And I do mean intellectual and not physically abused to become uncannily good at rote. 95
Posted by Kubilai on May 22, 2005, 02:05 AM | # Fred, that is how I understand it though no one has officially explained it to me. 96
Posted by jonjayray on May 22, 2005, 02:07 AM | # “JJR, how do you, as a conservative, square your belief that “(e)thnicity and group membership is one of the great preoccupations of the human race ... possibly second only to sex,” with your belief that with your belief that “(m)ost loyalty-provoking group differences are either imaginary, trivial or evanescent BUT SOME ARE NOT,” and more importantly, with your non-ideational explication of conservatism 3 posts above? Very easily. It is typical of human folly and a good illustration of why we need to proceed carefully 97
Posted by Guessedworker on May 22, 2005, 04:12 AM | # John, I hope you found your dinner companion good company. My Dad visited Germany and occupied Europe thirty times with RNZAF. Don’t know if he picked up a special RAF lingo and passed it on to me, Lamarckian-style. We won a holiday in Oz five years ago and turned it into a three week jaunt to stay with friends in Sydney and the GC. Loved Sydney for its collection of intimate corners. It is an English city. But I was shocked at the numbers of East Asians around. Immigration is a historical process which we mistakenly view on a day-to-day, snap-shot basis. Australians are going to loose their country. As soon as a political elite becomes anomised - that is, lost to the identity and self-love of its own people - it will see only nation-as-ideas. Anomie, that state of the liberal Western soul, is not only the explanation for destructive underclass behaviours. It tells us why our political class cannot see the ties of kinship which bind its people, and cannot draw therefrom a single one of the screamingly obvious political inferences. Birch, Why should I cut myself off from my nonwhite friends and people like GodlessCapitalist to unite with poorly educated whites who I have little in common with outside of European appearance? Because they take you for are a fool, I suppose. But, really, this is a question only you can answer. All I can advise you to do is to look at yourself and ask which world you love: the world of multi-racialism or the world of your own forebears. Perhaps I might also suggest that, in considering the latter, you reflect not only upon your own small life but upon your people’s now and long into the future. That future rests on the decision you come to today. 98
Posted by jonjayray on May 22, 2005, 04:20 AM | # “Anomie, that state of the liberal Western soul, is not only the explanation for destructive underclass behaviours.” Yet zero tolerance in NYC got rid of a lot of that underclass problem quicksmart. You need to apply Occam’s razor to your explanations. Bad underclass behaviour is largely a result of PC policing. Blacks were very docile before 1960 because they were shit-scared. They quite reasonably fear nothing now. 99
Posted by jonjayray on May 22, 2005, 04:38 AM | # “There is a limit to how big an underclass any country can take, especially in the face of increasingly leftwing politics” It is the politics that is the issue. 4 million South African whites once ran a very civilized society in most ways even with 16 million blacks to cope with. Only international pressure caused them to give up. The place has been completely transformed since black rule—with hugely increased crime affecting BOTH blacks and whites. I was there during apartheid and I have been there since. The decline in civility and standards generally is amazing. 100
Posted by jonjayray on May 22, 2005, 05:38 AM | # ion case I did not make that point clear, the racial composition before and after black rule was essentially identical. It was the politics that led to a huge collapse in civility. So don’t blame race for what is the politics’s fault 101
Posted by jonjayray on May 22, 2005, 05:48 AM | # By the way, I DO agree with Salty Frank that genetically homegeneous populations are more “brotherly”. I think the evidence is clear on that. But what does “brotherliness” lead to? Given the old Leftist slogan that “All men are brothers”, I would have thought that conservatives would be a little cynical about that. Let me give you an example: Scotland. There is a considerable feeling of brotherliness among Scots. I remember a phrase from a famous Harry Lauder song: “Where brother Scotsa foregather ... ” And what is the outcome? SOCIALISM. Scots in Scotland are frantically socialist. And that does no good to anybody. By the way, Frank Salter and I know one another well. He used to live in Brisbane and we had many pleasant chats. His politics are very nationalist, as you might expect. 102
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 22, 2005, 06:52 AM | # Blacks were very docile before 1960 because they were shit-scared. One has to marvel at John Ray’s ingenuity. It just never ends. There’s a novel tactic every inch of the way. I mean look at this: He eschews old style Racialism but then relies on old style racialism to prove blacks can be tamed. John, you can’t have it both ways. You can either have white unity and homogeneity which keeps black behaviour under check or you can have a multiracial paradise in which the ethnocentrism and unity of the majority is absent to check rampant criminality among blacks. But, in God’s name, please be a little honest. You can’t possibly have both. 103
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 22, 2005, 06:56 AM | # It is the politics that is the issue. 4 million South African whites once ran a very civilized society in most ways even with 16 million blacks to cope with. Again relying on old style racialism to prove a point but then eschewing it to move to the moral high ground. Amazing. The 15 U turns I have witnessed thus far leave me stunned. 104
Posted by jonjayray on May 22, 2005, 08:50 AM | # I don’t think Phil can cope with the complexity of the real world. I would like to make my story simpler but reality is what it is 105
Posted by JW Holliday on May 22, 2005, 10:14 AM | # Birch Barlow: Why should I cut myself off from my nonwhite friends and people like GodlessCapitalist to unite with poorly educated whites who I have little in common with outside of European appearance? Godless (from GNXP blog): Do white nationalists like Jared Taylor really feel more comfortable among low IQ whites (prone to violence, illiteracy, illegitimacy, etc.) than high IQ non-whites? Do they believe that a hypothetical homeland in which only high IQ individuals were admitted would be a worse place to live than one in which only whites were admitted? Barlow is positively laughable. I assume when he marries Suzie Chan, he’ll let Godless invoke the rights of ius primae noctis also known as droit du seigneur. When is Barlow going to be a man and not an extended phenotype? Answering Godless: what about an all-white homeland that practices eugenics? What guys like GC don’t understand is that there are white cognitive elitists like Taylor for whom he (GC) is simply an alien, no matter what his smarts. I’m reminded of the Belgian (I think) character in “Camp of the Saints” that likened the South Asian hordes massing to threaten Europe to “Martians”. I can’t speak for Taylor, but for me, these Asiatics are no more my brothers or fellow citizens than would be Martians - and I care not how smart they are. I don’t like low-IQ white criminals either, but I see GC as no more desirable than such a criminal. There is no “law” that says a nationalist white state has to tolerate stupid, criminal, useless whites - the types that are common in our current regime. GC’s “choice” is rigged. I like neither white morons and criminals nor do I like aliens who for me are no more assimilable than little green men. Remember that pic I posted here of that Indian woman emerging from the Ganges mud? Hello, Mars! John: It seems to me that Northern European populations (including their offshoots in Northern France and Northern Italy) are essentially the same. Like most far-leftists, John uses a strategy that basically revolves around ignoring facts and refutations. As previously stated here - and is clear from genetic data going back at least as far as Cavalli-Sforza’ 1994 book - Northern European populations are not “the same”. John’s weasel word “essentially” gives him an “out”, but one can say that “all mammals are essentially the same”. So what’s the point? It can be accurate to say “relatively more similar”, but that doesn’t obviate real differences in genetic interest. The British would have been best served reserving Australia for their own exclusive demographic expansion, the same holds for the USA. Having let in genetically relatively similar other Europeans, there now exists a new reality in which the organic solidarity of the new, more generalized white majority becomes crucial against genetically (and culturally) more distant non-Europeans. Having squandered their patrimony, Anglo-Australians and Anglo-Americans find themselves having to broaden their in-group. Northern France is questionable, but Northern Italy is laughable. Bavaria is already prime Alpinid territory, so Northern Italy cannot be considered an “offshoot” of Northern Europe either biologically (see Rootsi et al, 1994, or DNAPrint European genetic maps, or the voluminous material on “Racial Reality” etc) or culturally (read Luigi Barzini, or compare Milan and Venice to Oslo and Copenhagen), unless one considers all of Europe to be such an offshoot! In order to talk reasonably about race and ethnicity, one must get the facts straight. We need to understand the “genetic facts on the ground”, not let anecdotes and random comments rule the day. As regards “SOCIALISM”, that is secondary. Thank god I’m no Conservative, and I don’t place economics over biological continuity. Infinitely better a socialist homogenous state that a multiracial capitalist one. As regards “Salty Frank”, I say god bless his nationalist politics. At least some Australians make sense. 106
Posted by Guessedworker on May 22, 2005, 10:41 AM | # John, I think Phil has probably got you there. Occam, btw, can return to his monastery. He is not needed because I was not referring to blacks as the underclass but using the term “underclass” only to illustrate that anomie is not the sole preserve of any social class or group but extends throughout society. It’s effects, of course, are felt differently at different levels. Social liberalism (ie, the availability of drugs and the reformation of our women as whores) hits the lower-IQ strata, be it black or white, desperately hard. Liberalism is far less lethal to the intellectual middle-classes who actually understand and believe in it, and who largely form the political elite. But one of its effects is to render society anonymous ... just a blank slate on which new designs can be draw. And why not, after. In an anonymous society the consequences are morally relative. 107
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 22, 2005, 10:46 AM | # I don’t think Phil can cope with the complexity of the real world. Oh, I cope very well thank you. 108
Posted by Kubilai on May 22, 2005, 11:08 AM | # There is no “law” that says a nationalist white state has to tolerate stupid, criminal, useless whites - the types that are common in our current regime. - JW I agree. I would also like to state that the White criminal elements in our current regime have been cultivated to become such criminals. With the glorification of unintelligible language, disrepect for all authority, disregard for social “norms, and an education system that is meant to produce illiterate and ignorant sheep, one can see why Whites of modest means have fallen so low. It is akin to the “when in Rome” analogy. I’m not saying Whites are angels and crime averse, however the numbers are definitely skewed due to the current state of affairs and that is how the rulers want it. It is absolutely clear that we cannot bring Blacks UP to the same education and behavioural level as Whites, so the next best thing is to bring DOWN Whites to the Black level. Having let in genetically relatively similar other Europeans, there now exists a new reality in which the organic solidarity of the new, more generalized white majority becomes crucial against genetically (and culturally) more distant non-Europeans. Having squandered their patrimony, Anglo-Australians and Anglo-Americans find themselves having to broaden their in-group. Knowing there are differences between Europeans, can you please clarify this point, JW or anyone else that would care to take a stab? I am not completely familiar with all the nuances of intra-European views towards one another. I look at it this way, we need to circle the wagons and pretty damn quick. I don’t care which European is next to me, just as long as they are European. That is except for Muslim Albanians. 109
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 22, 2005, 11:24 AM | # Not to mention the effect blacks have had on low IQ whites. 110
Posted by Kubilai on May 22, 2005, 11:26 AM | # Aslo, regarding Birch’s yearning for an East Asian female, this too has its roots in the slow and steady “whoring”, as GW puts it, of our White women. White women have fallen for the socially liberal mantra of being “equal” to men. Being aggressive, acting the same as men, being the alpha in a relationship etc. While White men, such as Birch, see no problem with Liberal thinking, they in turn seek out what they view as “ideal” female character traits. East Asian are more reserved, in public at least, docile, and male friendly. White men had this in White women until they decided to tinker with it. Now they seek it in other races that have those same “caveman” traits. 111
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 22, 2005, 01:39 PM | # Kub has got it right in his post of 3:26 PM. The other thing is, white women, in trying to be “aggressive in a male way,” get it completely, pathetically wrong because male behavior isn’t in their genes, and they end up looking just plain abrasive (instead the attractiveness they think they’re exuding by acting “self-assured and in control” or whatever it is the college leftists tell them to do), and it’s extremely unpleasant to behold. They probably hate being like that—probably go home every evening after work and cry over behaving in a way they hate—but don’t know any other way to be, college leftism having told them they must act abrasive and extremely unpleasant when out in the world. Of course the really feminine girls don’t act like that—their hormones won’t let them, but make them reject it immediately—and they’re the ones who get husbands, and get the manly men for their husbands too, the others who bought into the abrasiveness act either turning into old maids or marrying the kind of man who’s a whining sniveling leftist wimp and borderline homosexual no woman can possibly respect or be truly attracted to but hey, maybe these abrasive gals have finally learned their lesson—too bad it’s too late for them to meet Mr. Right and start a family by the time they learn. 112
Posted by Guessedworker on May 22, 2005, 01:39 PM | # Kubilai, Interesting point. The effects of turning women into foxes, incidentally, are felt by men in another way. All movement proceeds until it is exhausted or met by a force of equal strength. When those rebellious sixties girls first pursued freedom from feminity by masculinising their sexual behaviour they set in motion the drive towards a pornographic male demand in sexual relationships. “Women as whores” must behave as whores, even though this was not at all the deal that feminists thought they were getting. This article in yesterday’s Guardian:- http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1489204,00.html shows that not much of this has dawned upon feminists yet. But they know something has gone wrong. What went wrong, of course, was liberalism and the distopian reification of freedom into logos. But I doubt if any liberal can put the pieces of the puzzle together because the investment in their faith is just to great. 113
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 22, 2005, 03:53 PM | # ”[...] our political class cannot see the ties of kinship which bind its people, and cannot draw therefrom a single one of the screamingly obvious political inferences.” (—Guessedworker, 8:12 AM) This is right. One of the screamingly obvious inferences they cannot draw (although one that isn’t only “political” in the narrow sense) is that everything the members of the political class are (and the other élites of a traditional nation-state are), including their physical/racial characterisctics, their temperaments, their ways of thinking and acting, their likes and dislikes, tastes in art, culture, sport, leisure, philosophy, lifestyles, beauty, religion, and so forth, are the result of genetic influence and conditioning (and of course concomitant cultural influence and conditioning which is also partly genetic because culture is partly genetic) exerted by these very ties of kinship/gene-exchange over centuries and millennia: the different classes of a traditional nation-state are all linked with one another genetically and have evolved together as a unit over eons or however long they’ve been together. The political class and other élites cannot seem to draw the inference that if you change the race of the lower or middle classes of your traditional nation-state you, the élites, will not be exempt but will undergo racial change yourselves—because you have always been in genetic equilibrium with them, not in some sort of “breeding isolation” from them—and there is no way around this except Brazilianization for your class and nation. Is Brazilianization what you wish? “Yet zero tolerance in NYC got rid of a lot of that underclass problem quicksmart. You need to apply Occam’s razor to your explanations. Bad underclass behaviour is largely a result of PC policing.” (—John R., 8:20 AM) Zero tolerance is a pathology used to fight another pathology. Why not opt instead for simple, ordinary normalness? Permitting popular expressions of doubt about excessive incompatible “immigration” and race-replacement instead of constantly squelching them would lead to a perfectly natural solution to the problem without any effort by “intellectuals,” as the solution would simply emerge and likely be to everyone’s satisfaction provided certain groups were honest enough. “It is the politics that is the issue. 4 million South African whites once ran a very civilized society in most ways even with 16 million blacks to cope with. Only international pressure caused them to give up. The place has been completely transformed since black rule—with hugely increased crime affecting BOTH blacks and whites. I was there during apartheid and I have been there since. The decline in civility and standards generally is amazing. In case I did not make that point clear, the racial composition before and after black rule was essentially identical. It was the politics that led to a huge collapse in civility. So don’t blame race for what is the politics’ fault. (—John R., 8:38 AM and 9:38 AM) But isn’t it clear that the racial situation engendered the politics? So, race is to blame. Avoid this sort of racial imbalance and you won’t get the “solution” imposed on the poor Boers—capitulation followed by treatment at the hands of their new mastersranging from unfavorable to heinous. 114
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 22, 2005, 03:59 PM | # “By the way, I DO agree with Salty Frank that genetically homegeneous populations are more ‘brotherly.’ I think the evidence is clear on that. But what does ‘brotherliness’ lead to? Given the old Leftist slogan that ‘All men are brothers,’ I would have thought that conservatives would be a little cynical about that. Let me give you an example: Scotland. There is a considerable feeling of brotherliness among Scots. I remember a phrase from a famous Harry Lauder song: ‘Where brother Scotsa foregather ... ’ And what is the outcome? SOCIALISM. Scots in Scotland are frantically socialist. And that does no good to anybody.” (—John R., 9:48 AM) You may be allergic to a society characterised by a feeling of “brotherliness,” John, but don’t underestimate its appeal for many if not most people: it’s exactly a societal ingredient many have been looking for. Here’s part of an e-mailed reply I sent someone the other month which has some relevance to your comments on a “brotherly” feeling in society and “socialism”: Nazi National Socialism was socialism (i.e., enforced “community,” “enforced” meaning the selfish can’t “cheat” by avoiding the sacrifices for the common good which the honest make willingly) without religion; communism was socialism (enforced “community”) without religion or race. The difference between the gentile and Jewish outlooks isn’t socialism, which both want. It’s race: Jews understandably can’t relate to a version of socialism (a version of enforced “community”) that considers or implies they’re outsiders, so they’ll opt for the version that excludes race as a consideration, in order that they can’t be considered outsiders. Modern communism, partly sort of an extreme form of the altruism toward one’s fellow man that was fostered by Nazi National Socialism but without race, was largely invented, developed, and put into practice by Jews perhaps as a way for them to feel that they, too, could have the possibility of living in an altruistically socialist society, just as the gentiles around them had (the possibility of living in a society which enforced “community”) without needing to worry that they might be viewed by some as being of the “wrong race” – without needing to worry that they might not fit in, because of their race. (Communism is sort of “Jewish” National Socialism—and, being “Jewish,” it takes out the “National” part—since otherwise Jews would feel excluded—and leaves only the “Socialism” part.) One problem with the Jewish approach to socialism is, as “Melinda Jelliby” notes, you can’t have socialism without race because socialism won’t work well—in some cases won’t work at all—across racial lines (Mrs. Jelliby goes further, opining it won’t even work within races where the racial substrates of socialism be other than white), so the Jewish quest to find a version of socialism without race is doomed to fail, according to that view. In reconstituting their homeland, Israel, Jews are finally after two thousand years on the right track: having a nation-state, that is, a racial ethnoculture dwelling in its ancestral homeland, is the closest one can get to what the Jews have been searching for—that sense of “community” which in some ways is socialistic, meaning people genuinely care about each other in some important ways and, yes, there’s a little government coercion toward that end so that the contributions of the selfish not be lesser than those of the honest. “By the way, Frank Salter and I know one another well. He used to live in Brisbane and we had many pleasant chats. His politics are very nationalist, as you might expect.” (—John R., 9:48 AM) Oh? Pity none of it seems to have rubbed off on you, John. 115
Posted by bb on May 22, 2005, 10:43 PM | # Kubilai— 116
Posted by bb on May 22, 2005, 10:49 PM | # GW: “John, I think Phil has probably got you there.” I’m not so sure. The civil rights movement, as it was backed by many far left groups (I think including ones directly funded by the Soviet Union), came with a lot of baggage. Were it not for the Great Society welfare programs, as well as the soft-on-crime policies that came with them, I think the black (and white) crime rate might well have held to around where it was in the 1950s. Even with all the leftist pathology that exists today, less soft-on-crime policies have helped bring crime rates back down (somewhat) from the anarchic levels of the mid 1970s to mid 1990s. 117
Posted by jonjayray on May 23, 2005, 07:17 AM | # “Pity none of it seems to have rubbed off on you, John. “ I actually am a sort of nationalist in that I believe the Anglo-Saxon contribution to civilization has been the greatest—but the Jews are close behind, I think. Europe’s holy book is entirely written by Jews after all Next entry: Reagan and Salisbury Previous entry: Another victim of multiculturalism |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. The Socal group scam commented in entry 'The Moral high ground?' on 02/09/12, 06:50 AM. (go) (view) Hyman commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/09/12, 05:47 AM. (go) (view) RES commented in entry 'Who caused the 2008 housing bubble to burst in the U.S.?' on 02/09/12, 05:44 AM. (go) (view) Robert Reis commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 04:07 AM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/09/12, 12:27 AM. (go) (view) anon commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 11:18 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:51 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:28 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) Mary commented in entry 'Anti-white ideology is like anti-biotic overuse' on 02/08/12, 09:24 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 09:04 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 08:15 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 08:09 PM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 07:52 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 07:48 PM. (go) (view) jamesUK commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 07:36 PM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 07:10 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 06:49 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:45 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 06:27 PM. (go) (view) marloe commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 06:21 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:17 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 06:08 PM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:07 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:03 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 05:53 PM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 05:51 PM. (go) (view) dc commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 05:13 PM. (go) (view) Lurker commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 04:55 PM. (go) (view) MP commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 04:43 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 04:31 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 04:07 PM. (go) (view) Wild Bill commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 04:02 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 03:47 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Stuka on May 19, 2005, 11:10 PM | #
...in a way that, I suppose, makes me an ideal citizen of a multicultural society like Australia.
Pin a medal on yourself, mate.