Saturday, May 25, 2013

Can antiracism reform itself?


 
Nelson Mandela shakes hands with Frederik de Klerk, 1992. Antiracist iconography is focused on past struggles, like the fight against apartheid. Yet the world is now a very different place (source).


After five centuries of growth, the European world is contracting, and this contraction is visible not only overseas—in Johannesburg, Sydney, and New York—but also in Europe itself—in London, Paris, and Oslo. Yet this new reality is scarcely visible in antiracist iconography, which is set in the heroic age of past struggles. For some, the high point was the anti-apartheid struggle of the 1980s. For others, it was the civil rights era of the early 1960s. For others still, it was the last world war.

When a French magazine interviewed Pierre-André Taguieff about his newly published dictionary of racism, the interview was accompanied by photos of the usual suspects, including one from apartheid South Africa. Yet that country has been under black rule for almost two decades now. Yes, it’s been that long already.

This is one point that Pierre-André has been raising. The world is now a changed place, yet antiracism has failed to adapt. Worse still, antiracists fail to see the perverse effects of this failure to adapt. The solution, however, is not to abandon antiracism, but to reform it. For Pierre-André, antiracists need to rediscover their libertarian roots. At one time, they were “on the side of anti-conformism, of spiritual rebellion. The Dreyfusard intellectuals fought with the arms of intellect, in the name of universal values (Justice, Truth), against official prejudices and dominant ideas” (Taguieff, 2013, p. 66).

Anti-White racism?

In addition, Pierre-André argues that antiracists should do more to condemn racism against Whites.

But “anti-White racism” has never really been recognized and condemned by organized antiracist activists as a full-fledged form of racism. Its importance continues to be minimized, and its dangerousness underestimated. The most common attitude is not to deny the existence of so-called “anti-White racism” but to consider it negligible. Professional antiracists—the heads and staff of antiracist associations—wish to preserve their monopoly over the definition of “racism” and the designation of “racists.” (Taguieff, 2013a)

This attitude, bordering on denial, is not wholly unjustified. First, let’s suppose that the antiracist movement does recognize the existence of anti-White racism. Overnight, its purpose would shift from primarily one of changing the behavior of Whites to primarily one of changing the behavior of non-Whites, especially people of African or Muslim origin. For those are the people who perpetuate most acts of interracial violence. Could most antiracists handle such an about-face?

Second, interracial violence against Whites seem less racially motivated than interracial violence against non-Whites. To a large degree, it is a side effect of the higher rate of interpersonal violence within certain non-White communities. If we look at the United States, the high rate of Black-on-White violence is largely explained by the similarly high rate of Black-on-Black violence. Undoubtedly, there are cases where Whites are victimized specifically because of their racial background. Even there, however, the reason has more to do with Whites being an easy target. “Whites don’t fight back.”

This was a lesson I once learned … the hard way. When my family moved to a town of largely Scots-Irish heritage, I had to deal with a more aggressive environment at school. For a while I felt like the other boys were singling me out. Actually, their violence was just following the path of least resistance. Things got easier when I learned to fight back, although “fighting back” wasn’t just self-defense. It was also preemptive violence. And collective violence. It could also mean provoking a fight when the odds were in your favor, as opposed to letting the other guy choose the moment when the odds were in his favor.

That kind of violence will not be remedied by antiracist education. Imagine a “youth” who wants to beat someone up—either for an initiation or just for the fun of it. He settles on an easy target, a person who won’t fight back, a White. How can antiracist education stop him from acting out his thoughts? By teaching him that White passivity is a baseless stereotype? By making him feel guilty? By appealing to his sense of justice?

Such a strategy works with a population that considers violence unacceptable, unless permitted by some higher authority and sanctioned as “just.” In Western Europe, however, that kind of population isn’t the one that’s committing the interracial violence.

The problem here is the lack of a common rulebook. Although many ‘New Europeans’ see violence as a legitimate way to settle a personal dispute, their countries of origin are often surprisingly peaceful. The reason is that any act of violence will trigger retaliation by the victim’s brothers and male relatives, and this retaliation will be visited not only on the perpetrator but also on his own family and relatives. The result is a “balance of terror” that ensures some degree of social peace.

The situation changes, however, when the same people move to a society that imposes nothing worse than a prison sentence on violent criminals and no punishment at all on their families. The result? In France, between 60 and 70% of prison inmates are Muslims, mostly from North or West Africa, although they make up only 12% of the total population (Moore, 2008). In Spain, they account for 70% of prison inmates but only 2.3% of the total population (WikiIslam, 2013). In Belgium, they make up 45% of prison inmates (Sudinfo.be, 2013). In all three cases, “Muslim” is a rough proxy for “people from clan-based societies that have been weakly pacified by a higher authority.” This proxy has the disadvantage of excluding some groups that shouldn’t be excluded (Christians and animists from parts of Africa). It also applies more to some Muslim groups (e.g., Somalis, Afghans) than to others (e.g., Egyptians).

It is difficult to discuss the above prison data in polite society. One has the impression of breaking a taboo, of saying something reprehensible. In polite society, violence is a last resort and done only under duress. Surely, those facts are exaggerated, if not fraudulent.

Yet the prison data actually understate the problem. Most acts of immigrant violence go unreported, and when reported they often go unpunished. The most flagrant examples are provided by the recent riots in London, Malmö, and the suburbs of many French cities:

Despite the scale of the damage, French police have hesitated to make any arrests for fear of sparking more riots. Residents of the neighborhood know the names of the perpetrators but "nobody dares to speak for fear of reprisals." "You can no longer order a pizza or get a doctor to come to the house." (Kern, 2012)

The riots nonetheless account for only a small part of the underreporting and underpunishment. In England, France, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, there are now many ‘no-go areas’ or zones de sécurité prioritaires where the police go intermittently or not at all.

Conclusion

Pierre-André is to be commended for criticizing the double standard that governs discussion of interracial violence. Nonetheless, this double standard is not wholly unwarranted. When Whites are the victims, the motives are less apparent, often being only a perception that Whites are easy targets. Even when the motives are clearly racial, if not racist, it’s unclear how they can be eliminated. Antiracist education would be of little use. Most of the educational material has been designed for Whites, with a view to making them feel guilty about the injustices they and their ancestors have done to non-Whites. If the target audience is now Muslim and African, we might get the reverse of what we want. We could actually end up inciting race hatred.

Yes, more balanced educational material could be produced, but how effective would it be anyway? Would appeals to feelings of guilt have the same effect on people who make less use of guilt in their own cultures to restrain wrong behavior? And who furthermore tend to define “wrong behavior” in non-universalistic terms, i.e., as whatever is bad for their own group? In any case, wouldn’t the target audience perceive such education as just “enemy” propaganda? Keep in mind that a low-grade insurrection is already brewing in many Afro-Muslim communities of Western Europe.

So what will be done? I suspect antiracists will acknowledge the existence of anti-White racism and take some steps to fight it, if only to remain credible. We’ll then see frantic searches for the masterminds behind such violence (Islamists? Cultural Marxists?). By and large, this ‘reformed antiracism’ will come to nothing.

The situation is eerily similar to that of Eastern Europe in the 1980s. Minor reforms produced disappointing results and tended to make other problems worse. Major reforms were not attempted because they might get out of hand … as they eventually did. So a consensus developed to muddle on, in the hope that things would sort themselves out … which they didn’t.

References

Kern, S. (2012). France seeks to reclaim ‘No-Go’ zones, August 24, Gatestone Institute,
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3305/france-no-go-zones 

Sudinfo.be (2013). 45% des détenus des prisons belges sont de confession musulmane, Sudinfo.be, May 23
http://www.sudinfo.be/726092/article/actualite/belgique/2013-05-17/45-des-detenus-des-prisons-belges-sont-de-confession-musulmane

Moore, M. (2008). In France, prisons filled with Muslims, The Washington Post, April 29
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042802560.html?hpid=topnews

Taguieff, P-A. (2013b). Dictionnaire historique et critique du racisme, Paris: PUF.

Taguieff, P. (2013a). Le racisme aujourd'hui, une vue d'ensemble, Le Huffington Post, May 21,

WikiIslam (2013). Muslim Statistics (Population)
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_%28Population%29#Spain 

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think the genuine element within antiracism will be increasingly forced by the reality on the ground into trying to reform. However the purely anti-white element will try and stop this and will probably succeed leading to the genuine element gradually dropping out.

So i think the answer is probably no but the anti-racist movement as a whole will shrink in size as the majority of its members realize it's not an anti-racist movement just an anti-white one in disguise.

Daybreaker said...

Anti-whiteness constantly and massively imports non-whites who have a self-interest in it; both a collective ethnocentric self-interest, and an individual self-interest in academic and hiring preferences and the game of promotions and awards. Getting well paid in a nice and easy job for being anti-white is great!

Anti-white whites believe in the Hollywood myth of the white traitor as hero, loved by the good and especially grateful non-whites, and not challenged by them. Non-whites don't.

Bill Clinton, who rejoices in the whites becoming a minority in America, got to be called the first black President, but he couldn't pass on power to his wife, because real non-white racial identity trumps the white traitor hero myth as far as the growing number of real non-whites are concerned.

We see that this doesn't make the anti-white whites, the professional traitors, re-think. They get dejected, but that's all. They have no argument that this shouldn't be happening, they just didn't want it to happen to them. That is their approach to the displacement and ultimate genocide of white people in general - it's fine, as long as they personally profit.

They can't form a common front to resist their displacement. Apart from anything else, they can't trust each other, because the price of admission to their club is to be a traitor on a huge scale. Whoever gets a chance to stab the others in the back and elevate himself as the "real" anti-racist will do so.

Over time, "anti-racism" which is just anti-white-ism, is going to become increasingly raw and brutal.

That isn't necessary to its goal. Mass non-white immigration plus forced integration means white genocide with or without violence. But it's inevitable given the character of the people it brings to the top.

In Rhodesia, the anti-racist "international community" would not tolerate any solution except that Robert Mugabe should rule. That was the most anti-white outcome, and therefore the mandatory one. Mugabe could then have completed the "soft" elimination of the whites through forced integration and "blending" them away. But his character wasn't soft, and so we see what we see.

The character of people brought to the top by anti-whiteness disguised as "anti-racism" will often not be soft.

That won't make the white traitors rethink. We can already see that they don't rethink. The farmer murders on South Africa mean little to them, and "soft" genocide is their goal, so "the browning of America" and so on just makes them gloat. Besides, where would they rethink? Due to the totalitarian speech control they impose, there is nowhere safe for them to discuss any growing doubts without the fear of being discovered, denounced, shamed, fired, ostracized, and prevented from getting good work in future. People whose job depends on being liked - and there are a lot of them - don't want to risk that.

So once whites give up power, which is what the anti-whites want, the end for whites will be sure, with the anti-white whites still supporting it. This is not going to end with hard-core anti-whites admitting that they were supporting white genocide and turning over a new leaf.

And the end will likely horrible, in a squalid, straggling, disorderly way, because that is the character of the people who will rule the post-white world.

It's still white genocide either way though. Whether the end is soft or hard, gone is gone.

Bottom line: white genocide will have to be defeated, no matter what the odds.

The alternative is the end of everything and everybody in the white world. There is no reward for going along with one's genocide, whether because one is dismayed by the odds or for any other reason.

Daybreaker said...

That picture of F. W. de Klerk and Nwlson Mandela looks very well to all anti-racists. Here is what comes after:

Shoot the Boer – lyrics – Zulu/English
Lyrics of the song sung by Malema during his birthday speech (transcribed and translated from the Times’s online audio of Malema’s birthday speech):

Ayasab’ amagwala (cowards are scared)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
ayeah
dubula dubula (shoot shoot )
ayasab ‘a magwala (cowards are scared)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
awu yoh
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)

awe mama ndiyekele (mother leave me be)
awe mama iyeah (oh mother)
awe mama ndiyekele (mother leave me be)
awe mama iyo (oh mother)

aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)

Ayasab’ amagwala (cowards are scared)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot )
ayeah
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
ayasab ‘a magwala (cowards are scared)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
iii yoh
dubula dubala (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)

awe mama ndiyekele (mother leave me be)
awe mama iyo (oh mother)
awe mama ndiyekele (mother leave me be)
awe mama iyo (oh mother)

aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)

Ziyarapa lezinja (these dogs rape)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
ay iyeah
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
Ziyarapa lezinja (these dogs rape)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
ay iiiyo
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)

Aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
Aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
Aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
Aw dubul’ibhunu (shoot the Boer)
dubula dubula (shoot shoot)

Ayasab’ amagwala (cowards are scared)
Dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
Ay iyeah
Dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
Ayasab’ amagwala (cowards are scared)
Dubula dubula (shoot shoot)
Ay iyeah

Anonymous said...

Although many ‘New Europeans’ see violence as a legitimate way to settle a personal dispute, their countries of origin are often surprisingly peaceful. The reason is that any act of violence will trigger retaliation by the victim’s brothers and male relatives, and this retaliation will be visited not only on the perpetrator but also on his own family and relatives. The result is a “balance of terror” that ensures some degree of social peace.

Constabulary societies have needed to keep violent tendencies high enough to enable their group of communal punishers (the police) to exist as a functional group.

Clan societies need to keep violent tendencies high enough so that their clan based punishers can still exist as a group.

In one instance, the genotypes have to favor the emergance of a small percentage of the population who are willing to use violence against offenders all the time, once provided with a justification, while the other favors the emergence of a large percentage of the population who are willing to use violence sporadically, once provided with a justification.

Of course, actually selecting for a small group that is very willing to lead a life of violence leads to some degree to heightened tendencies for violence in the mass population, while selecting for general violent tendencies in the population will unavoidably lead to a small hardcore, still....

This is all somewhat independent of trends that make the returns to initiating violence grow and fall.

There may be some co-evolution of constabularies with the mobs, cops with robbers. The most iconic criminal enterprises like the Mafia and Triads occur within long settled populations with a history of organised enforcement of crime (such as the Italians and the Chinese).

Daybreaker said...

The evolutionary disaster for white boys is not merely the greater criminality of the invading non-whites but their collectivism, which is highly dominant over individualism in competition within a society.

The non-whites easily push individual white males to the bottom of the heap while preying on while females and keeping their own females for themselves. Why? Because each white is utterly alone, with little or no family and a hostile, anti-white state, while the non-whites are backed up by big, highly related and highly supportive groups.

The individual white, with a "man to man" mentality and no support has mo chance against non-whites who may be cowards as individuals but aren't individuals but rather members of gangs numbering in the dozens or scores.

That is how it plays out in Norway, as published by Gates of Vienna and commented on by Kevin MacDonald. His bottom line is correct: "Immigration and multiculturalism are a disaster for the West."

Whites as a sub-species are highly individualistic, and thus more capable of building effective (and relatively often democratic) civil societies that are not subverted by tribalism. That is their prime competitive advantage: society to society.

For that to work, they need all-white societies, so that having a lower guard against other members of the same society does not work against them. That is how the age of European success worked.

When the anti-white state betrays the white people, whites can be pushed out of neighborhoods, that is out-competed for territory, by any less individualistic, less universalistic group, using the tremendous superiority of group action over individual action in social conflict.

While the anti-white state prevents whites from organizing to fight for their group interests (because that's "racist") the whites lose. And we are losing, in a Darwinian contest.

To artificially create and sustain Darwinian contests that one race is guaranteed to lose is genocidal. You might as well decree that pygmies don't get to eat unless they are winners at basketball against Masai, and then have crooked refs (like institutionally anti-white police forces) make absolutely sure the games end the right way.

Anonymous said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QoJGvEVogI

“I think there is going to be anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not learned to be multicultural. And I think we’re going to be a part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they were once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation Europe will not survive.”

Daybreaker said...

She must have copied that from AntiRacist Hitler.

You see, people can reform themselves! If Hitler can do it, antiracism can do it too!

Peter Fros_ said...

Daybreaker,

Extreme measures, by their very nature, tend to do more harm than good. What did Venner's suicide accomplish? Did he stop to think that Catholics consider suicide to be sinful? The reaction to his theatrics was overwhelmingly negative, particularly from the largely Catholic supporters of the Manif pour Tous.

There are alternatives to sterile radicalism. If you live in the United States, you can support groups like NumbersU.S.A. If you live in Western Europe, there are a number of legal nationalist parties. I have trouble understanding people who condone extreme measures, like suicide, while fretting about social ostracism.

Anon,

Yeah, I've already seen that video by Barbara Spectre (why didn't you mention Susan Sontag while you were at it?). But I've also heard many Lutherans and other nice Christians say that multiculturalism is what Jesus wants.

Daybreaker said...

Peter Fros_: "Extreme measures, by their very nature, tend to do more harm than good."

Is that supposed to be a universal law of history? How was it established? It is not intuitively plausible, given all the extreme situations we can point to in history.

It seems to me that moderation is usually good, but extreme situations may call for actions that wouldn't be appropriate if the stakes weren't so high. And a highly effective international push for mass non-white immigration into white countries and forced integration is an extreme situation.

The outcome that we are being pushed toward is genocide, that is, the white race, as a whole or in (substantial) part will cease to exist. But it's happening in an atmosphere of hopeless apathy, without resistance.

Rather than condemning Dominique Venner I would criticize people who don't share his seriousness and urgency. What is happening to us as white people is a disaster, far beyond the things one ordinarily thinks of as "bad".

Daybreaker said...

Peter Fros_: "What did Venner's suicide accomplish?"

I think the fair reply is: it's too soon to say. Which means maybe not much. And then again maybe later quite a lot.

But taking action in a crisis, such as a war or a disaster like this, is chancy. It often happens that people need to take action, without certainty that this particular action will work, but with the knowledge that action over-all is necessary, that mild patience will be fatal. You cannot win if nobody will die at the Alamo for fear that their deaths might be in vain.

Daybreaker said...

Peter Fros_: "Did he stop to think that Catholics consider suicide to be sinful? The reaction to his theatrics was overwhelmingly negative, particularly from the largely Catholic supporters of the Manif pour Tous."

I'm sure he considered it. But it isn't possible to seek our salvation entirely within the rules of the Catholic Church. It has become objectively anti-white; a right to economic migration has even been written into the catechism in America.

Daybreaker said...

Peter Fros_: "There are alternatives to sterile radicalism. If you live in the United States, you can support groups like NumbersU.S.A. If you live in Western Europe, there are a number of legal nationalist parties. I have trouble understanding people who condone extreme measures, like suicide, while fretting about social ostracism."

In our situation, a situation that actually is genocidal, radicalism, which means going to the root, is vital. Most people are not radical enough; their "opposition" is shaped within the anti-white discourse promoted by both the political "right" and the "left". That's no good; it leads political action to be misdirected into trivialities of no value.

Here in Australia, the One Nation movement was as good as dead when its leader Pauline Hanson said that she had no concern with immigrants provided they learned to speak good English. Well, there goes your cultural argument, and as for defending white interests she would not even articulate them in explicitly racial terms. The effort that everyone put into One Nation was a waste - and we were demonized as evil "racists" anyway.

At a demonstration I attended recently, a lady was telling us all about how some brilliant speaker had convinced her that non-white mass immigration wasn't the problem, only Islam. This wasn't a heckler from the audience, this was one of the demonstrators, but the clash of interests involved in non-white mass immigration into white countries and the western form of multiculturalism where the white majority is excluded from having its interests recognized was lost on her. Frank Salter's little talk was lost on her; she was not radical enough.

To be useful, you have to step outside the thinking that the "moderate" mainstream makes compulsory. You have to argue explicitly for white people's common interests in our long term future, and our right to survive genetically and not only through Anzac biscuits and sporting records and the like, even though that's "racist"and will make you unpopular, even "unacceptable", and even though that may put you outside even the organizations of the so-called "extreme" right, which generally still accepts that one cannot speak up for the interests of white people as a race.

(We mustn't be "racist!" The radical character of the "far right" is generally a fantasy of the anti-whites, who want witches to hunt. In reality people simply don't like being displaced and replaced.)

Dominique Venner's forceful statement, which necessarily involved action, was extremely appropriate. It shouldn't be repeated. But it did need to be said once, and in that way, with blood.

Dominique Venner has my respect in the same way that David Crockett, Jim Bowie and the others at the Alamo have. What did they actually accomplish? Even long after, historians are not sure. But theirs was a brave act in a good cause. And so was Dominique Venner's.

Daybreaker said...

The white race is being murdered in its sleep. It's necessary to wake people up. You shouldn't condemn someone who gave the last, full measure of devotion to our race in trying to do that.

Daybreaker said...

Leading, writing, speaking, raising his own family, fighting - Dominique Venner had done all these things. Whatever you can say he should have done instead of his final protest against the destruction of the white race, he had done first.

He had given us almost everything. And now it's everything.

Daybreaker said...

This is what "moderation" in the face of an extreme situation looks like.

”Our ambition is really to do as little as possible,” Stockholm Chief of Police Mats Löfving explained to the Swedish newspaper Expressen on Tuesday.

So the police do nothing about the car-burning non-white rioters, but crack down on whites. Just like in the UK, where the brutal murder of a white soldier in the street by non-whites is something for the authorities to smooth over, but if you so much as twitter about it, the police might arrest you at 3:20am if someone says your words were "racist".

Such "moderation" is nothing to be proud of or aspire to.

It's inconsistent with the continued existence of the white race.

Under the Board Walk said...

Stalinism reformed itself when Stalin died. So did Maoism. Antiracism will do the same.

Sean said...

Daybreaker, shooting yourself in the head, like Saint-Simon did, doesn't prove you are worthless, but it is a sign that you can't face that possibility. It was not Saint-Simon shooting himself that caused Marx to take Saint-Simon's ideas and run with them. Moreover, Sontag did not convince elite whites to be anti-racist, she pandered to elite white culture.

The nicest (and most accomplished) whites are often fine with multiculturalism, and totally alienated by nationalist rhetoric. A post aimed at elite whites' concerns isn't helped by extreme comments. It's extraordinarily difficult to get through to elite whites, and the commentators who alienate them.

Daybreaker said...

Under the Board Walk: "Stalinism reformed itself when Stalin died. So did Maoism. Antiracism will do the same."

There are three problems with that. The first is that you don't suggest a third name. There is no individual whose death would slow down anti-white-ism.

Another problem is that anti-white policies of mass immigration and forced integration are rapidly changing the permanent circumstances of whites the worse.

After Mao, the Chinese were still there. After Stalin, the Soviet peoples were mostly still there in some fashion, though the breaker of nations did a good job of messing them up.

Whites going into a minority in their own countries can't just throw off their shackles.

The third problem is that the content of this "moderation" is undefined. Anti-white policies of continuous mass non-white immigration into white countries and forced integration are fundamentally eliminationist. You could "moderate" them by slowing the rate of mass immigration somewhat and putting more emphasis on forcing non-whites as well as whites to get into the melting pot and join a miscellaneous brown future in formerly white countries, and it would still be the end of the whites.

Daybreaker said...

Sean: "Daybreaker, shooting yourself in the head, like Saint-Simon did, doesn't prove you are worthless, but it is a sign that you can't face that possibility."

Not in this case. Dominique Venner expressed himself clearly. As an individual he was doing well, but his concerns were communal.

And they were justified by many facts, and by his analysis of history, an analysis he was qualified to make, though as always different people will have different interpretations.


Sean: "The nicest (and most accomplished) whites are often fine with multiculturalism, and totally alienated by nationalist rhetoric. A post aimed at elite whites' concerns isn't helped by extreme comments. It's extraordinarily difficult to get through to elite whites, and the commentators who alienate them."

Sean, you've been pushing an idea of dissenters from the anti-white official consensus as "criminal lumpens" and inherently socially unacceptable to "nice" anti-whites. That's inaccurate, since we're talking about people like Dominique Venner, Jason Richwine, Jared Taylor and so on.

What I am saying is that the fundamental analysis of white genocide through continuous non-white mass immigration into white countries and forced integration cannot be falsified for the sake of being acceptable to those who take their ideas on what is "nice" from the anti-white tribal moral community of academia or from the mass media.

And it doesn't make sense to repudiate people who see this in a radical way and oppose it.

This is as useless as if during the Rwandan genocide one had accepted that you can't say black people are doing things like that, so instead (bearing in mind the need not to alienated the most tender-minded elites) we are going to talk only about anti-Tutsi discrimination in housing in career structures. No, that is not the bottom line, and if you start to play along with a rose scented false analysis for the sake of acceptability, there's nothing left to talk about.

If your key claims are ethnic nationalist you have to make them, even if "nice people" who are indoctrinated with anti-nationalism are "totally alienated by nationalist rhetoric". If your key claims are racial, you have to make them, even if the anti-white consensus is that it's fine for non-whites to make racial claims but unacceptable for whites to do so. And so on.

The key grievances for those who want white people simply to continue in the world without being destroyed as an identifiable group (either in whole or in part, as in the definition of genocide), cannot be softened, they have to be made, and plainly.

The requirement of the anti-whites and compromisers that to be respectable enough to get a hearing you must repudiate key figures (like Venner, Taylor and so on) also has to be rejected.

If a child is dying because its guardians will not give it food or water, you cannot moderate your demands to say, "OK, no food but only water, and anyone who says a child needs food as well as water and gets upset over it is a bad person." Your compromise is in vain. The child will still die.

This is the situation for white children collectively. They are losing their future due to policies that imply a world without white people, or at least a world where some white nations have ceased to exist and others have been gravely harmed as white homelands. A more "moderate" version of the same program won't do.

Daybreaker said...

Just a reminder: there is nothing about the anti-white program, as revealed for example by the stealth mass immigration initiated under Tony Blair, that does not imply the final elimination of whites everywhere in the world.

Any hope that we will get only the "lowball" estimate of the consequences of international anti-white-ism assumes that the anti-whites will be defeated and their program will be decisively interrupted.

There is reason to hope for that, because some people do care, and history is full of unexpected turns and horrible projects decisively interrupted.

But this is all you can really say for the moderation of the anti-whites: they might not achieve complete white genocide because they might be stopped.

As for those who oppose them, we are trying to keep in existence, for instance, the four nations of the British Isles: the English, the Welsh, the Irish and the Scots, white people who have been there with little change (till now!) since the retreat of the glaciers. We would like that story and others like it not to end in genocide in this century or soon after, historically speaking, through mass non-white immigration, forced integration and an array of supplementary anti-white measures.

Sean said...

Daybreaker, your arguments are not correct ones taken to extremes, they are just wrong. The analogy with a child dying in circumstances where it is within an adult's power to rescue the child at no danger to themselves assumes there is a categorical duty to help. If one was in those circumstances, then yes we would be obliged to help, just as we would have a right to expect other adults to help our own child. But, a continent away children are certainly dying in Africa right now of hunger and or diseases that could easily be prevented. And there are affluent liberals, of the Tom Hayden type, who are spending money on fripperies such as parties for their children, which would save the lives of one or more black children. (It sounds callous even saying that.) Though western liberal universalists will give to those desperately in need in other countries, they do not feel obliged to give so much that their own children will be even slightly disadvantaged. So everyone in the west is guilty of genocide against non whites by your reasoning.

Nobody acts in accordance with that reasoning, except in speculative theories of moral philosophy.

As we can see, people don't perceive a failure to save real human children dying right now as genocide; you'll never get anyone to accept that facilitating mass immigration is equivalent to committing genocide. It seems to me whites wouldn't feel obliged to sacrifice for those white people who have not been born yet, even if they believed all your predictions. So your argument can't possibly win people over.

Peter says anti-racism still uses a touchstone from the last century, and as a result there has been a sea change in anti-racism. So what he's making is a moral case for reform of anti-racism in the cause of fairness. The argument is aimed at people who want to be just.

Daybreaker said...

What happens if you move millions of European dogs into all dingo habitat, and prevent any segregation of the dingoes, and favor the dogs in every way you can? What is the future of the dingoes in that case? It's obvious there isn't one; you are driving them into extinction. Ecologically conscious anti-whites get upset about things like that, but when it comes to whites, a population they are actually part of, they will pretend not to see the problem.

What happens if an Indian tribe is living on its reservation, and you imports a million blacks from Africa, and settle them in the reservation and require the Indians to "integrate" and "assimilate"? What is the future of the tribe in that case? It's obvious there isn't one; you are genociding them. Anti-whites concerned with the rights of indigenous peoples and social justice will get upset about things like that (as they should), but when it comes to whites, a population they are actually part of, they will pretend not to see the problem. Are the Welsh, for instance, the native inhabitants of Wales? No, no, the anti-whites can't see a problem.

The difficulty is not the logic of opposing genocide, and the moral and legal obligation to oppose genocide. That is bullet-proof. There is also no problem with getting people to see the logic of mass immigration and forced integration as an extinction event. People see that well enough when their anti-white racial bias is not engaged. The problem is anti-white bias, promoted by a hostile academia, mass media and political establishment.

Propaganda and fear of speaking politically incorrect truths keep people silent for now. And there is good reason for that silent fear, as Jason Richwine discovered.

But there is a duty of care where genocide is concerned. That duty exist regardless of who is swayed by what propaganda today. And it is naturally stronger in common morality the closer the crime is.

Basically you are predicting that anti-white propaganda will always have a dominating effect, so that those concerned with the future of white people might as well give up, regardless of true justice, the obligation to oppose genocides, the claims of race and nation, and anything else a historian and an intellectual might come up with.

But this is only the same kind of bluster that Communism used: give up, the triumph of our system is foreordained by Karl Marx! And you don't even have a Karl Marx; there is no developed rationale why the bad guys are going to win perpetually. Genocidal anti-whites are winning for now, and that is all they have.

Daybreaker said...

Sean: "So everyone in the west is guilty of genocide against non whites by your reasoning."

No.

Here is how this works. Asian for the Asians, Africa for the blacks, white countries for everybody. All blacks retain their black countries; the future of their race is secure. All Asians retain their Asian countries; the future of their race is secure. The whites are wiped out.

The obligation to prevent genocide naturally falls most heavily on whites, who are the nearest to the crime, geographically, in blood, and in some cases as active agents who ought to repent.

Daybreaker said...

Sean: "It seems to me whites wouldn't feel obliged to sacrifice for those white people who have not been born yet, even if they believed all your predictions."

Fighting for one's posterity is ancient, a foundation of civilization, and the finest thing a human can do. The very best of us will even sacrifice their healthy, happy, intellectually productive and successful lives for a small chance to change the future for the better for the benefit of their descendants. That courage should give us hope.

Sean said...

As have been telling you for the last week: we all use feelings (attuned to particular community's standards), not abstract conscious deliberation. Harping on about 'genocide' and Sontag & co is seriously counter productive, whatever you may think.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, Peter, I know plenty of church ladies myself. They're naive airheads who do and think what they're told. They're not globe trotting activists or media personalities like Spectre and Sontag who go around posing as authority figures telling people what to think. Church ladies are busy making casseroles and conforming to what they're told.

Anonymous said...

Someone should have told Joe Biden to mention church ladies in his recent speech. Apparently, in between baking casseroles and jello salads, church ladies have been moonlighting as Hollywood producers and media moguls.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/05/biden-jewish-heritage-is-american-heritage-164525.html

"“The Jewish people have contributed greatly to America. No group has had such an outsized influence per capita as all of you standing before you, and all of those who went before me and all of those who went before you.”"

"“The embrace of immigration” is part of that, as is the involvement of Jews in social justice movements.

“You can’t talk about the civil rights movement in this country without talking about Jewish freedom riders and Jack Greenberg,” he said, telling a story about seeing a group of Jewish activists at a segregated movie theater in Delaware. “You can’t talk about the women’s movement without talking about Betty Friedan” or American advances in science and technology without mentioning Einstein and Carl Sagan, or music and Gershwin, Bob Dylan and “so, so, so many other people.”

“I believe what affects the movements in America, what affects our attitudes in America are as much the culture and the arts as anything else,” he said. That’s why he spoke out on gay marriage “apparently a little ahead of time.”

“It wasn’t anything we legislatively did. It was ‘Will and Grace,’ it was the social media. Literally. That’s what changed peoples’ attitudes. That’s why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace and rapidly embrace” gay marriage, Biden said.

“Think behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense. And, I might add, it is all to the good,” he said.

Jews have also been key to the evolution of American jurisprudence, he continued, namedropping Brandeis, Fortas, Frankfurter, Cardozo, Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan. “You literally can’t. You can’t talk about the recognition of … rights in the Constitution without looking at these incredible jurists that we’ve had.”

“Jewish heritage has shaped who we are – all of us, us, me – as much or more than any other factor in the last 223 years. And that’s a fact,” he said."

"“So I think you, as usual, underestimate the impact of Jewish heritage. I really mean that. I think you vastly underestimate the impact you’ve had on the development of this nation. We owe you, we owe generations who came before you,” he said.""

Sean said...

Anon, Spectre is naive if she really believes her people are the bearers of multiculturalism. They didn't invent the Enlightenment project of a universal civilization, the French did. And to further it they insisted Jews integrate, hence Zionism which was declared 'a form of racism and racial discrimination' according to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379. I've already mentioned the connection between the French mainstream intellectuals critiquing anti-racism and the way anti-racists are also anti-Zionism. Sweden is most pro-immigration country in Europe, but it was like that before Barbara Lerner Spectre got there. Re. "busy making casseroles and conforming to what they're told". Have you heard of Frances Wright and her interracial free love commune? Her ideas came from France
---------------------------

I said: "I wonder if reading faces (and related social insights) are attenuated in populations selected for a hard-wired VWF" here

Face Blindness "2.5% of people in Germany had a hereditary, congenital form of prosopagnosia (face blindness)."

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Germany was the first country to have universal literacy.

Daybreaker said...

Sean, you are spending a lot of time tendentiously pushing the idea that Jews, who are so influential in many areas, have had no influence on anti-white policies, but this is irrelevant because what defines the anti-whites is what they do. There are whites, with the detestable Tom Hayden as a prime example, who explicitly desire the destruction of the white race and work to that end. There are Jews with the same attitude, and of course much better networking. The crime of genocide is the same, whether you are white, black, yellow, red, brown, Jewish or non-Jewish, or for that matter right or left-handed. It is a matter of ending a racial, ethnic, religious or national group by policy, and not of your motives.

As for the notion that we always act on irrational feelings, never on explicit processing (that is your "abstract conscious deliberation"), this also is an invalid defense to the crime of genocide. It does not hold up in law or morality.

Daybreaker said...

"The solution, however, is not to abandon antiracism, but to reform it."

Anti-racist means anti-white.

So try the sentence with this substitution: "The solution, however, is not to abandon anti-white-ism, but to reform it."

Or: "The solution, however, is not to abandon anti-white race hatred enacted in policy, but to reform it."

Or: "The solution, however, is not to discontinue white genocide, but to reform it."

"Reform" that consists of reluctant minor actions against the more blatant and crude forms of anti-white hostility while maintaining policies of white genocide is a smoother way to pursue genocide.

The proper response to genocide is to stop it. The proper response to anti-white-ism is to repudiate it and dismantle it.

Peter Fros_ said...

Daybreaker,

I understand your grief over the demographic changes that are sweeping through Australia and other Western countries. But you're not going to change things by feeling upset and leaving tons of comments on my blog.

Why don't you contact Mark Richardson and ask him what sort of real-world action you can do?

Antisemitism is a trap. As is "anti-jihadism". The nationalist parties that have made the most progress are those that have avoided both of those traps. This is one reason why there is no real resistance to globalism in the U.S.

Anonymous said...

Peter,

"Antisemitism" and "anti-jihadism" are terms like "racism". They're political terms used opportunistically.

Any genuinely nationalist party or movement worth its salt will be considered "antisemitic", "anti-jihadist", "racist", etc. Anything else is just an ineffectual lightning rod for native discontent.

Peter Fros_ said...

Anon,

Let's suppose that most Jews had remained in the Pale of Settlement and that they likewise remained marginal in the Western World. How different would history have been?

Well, there would have been no Hitler and no Second World War. And without WWII, decolonization would have proceeded much more slowly.

In this alternate scenario, the British and French would have consolidated their empires by raising their colonies to the status of overseas provinces and by granting citizenship to their colonial subjects. I'm not speculating here. That's what they were planning to do both before and immediately after WWII. Those plans came to nought only because of the wave of decolonization that set in from the mid-1950s onward.

In this alternate world, we would have more globalism, not less. And the economic logic of globalization would still be with us. It's not because Mark Zuckerberg is Jewish that he's lobbying for more immigration of computer programmers from India. He just wants to cut labor costs. And the same goes for all of the agribusiness interests, landscapers, home builders, and so on who are clamoring for "guest workers."

It's not hard to understand. If you frame globalization as the problem, the resulting policy solutions will be framed accordingly. If you frame the problem as the "Jews" or "Jihadists" you'll get policies that fail to address the problem or make it even worse.

panjoomby said...

@Peter Fros_
that is a superbly well-reasoned & succinct alternate history. my highest kudos - if you wrote such an alternate history novel i'd buy it. (as in purchase it & as in believe it) well-said.

Anonymous said...

panjoomby,

You don't have to wait for Peter to write that novel. It's just warmed-over Marxist materialism. There are thousands, millions of tomes and pages that have been written about it already over the past century. Peter has a tendency to turn to it when things start getting a little too politically incorrect. At that point, apparently things like genes, biology, sociobiology, etc., stop mattering and the economic or material "substructure" explains everything.

Peter,

You are speculating, and the entire premise of your speculation - that it represents some sort of "Jew-free" hypothetical - is not even true.

Peter Fros_ said...

Anon,

Globalization isn't speculation. It's real and it's happening. And it's the force that is driving the massive demographic change that daybreaker and others are concerned about.

Insourcing of low-wage labor brings real monetary benefits. Why do you think so many business interests are pushing so hard for it? Look at all the briefs that have been submitted in favor of "immigration reform" (i.e., amnesty plus higher legal immigration levels). Most of them come from the usual gamut of business interests. And it's not just big business. It's also small business too: landscapers, restaurant owners, Christmas tree farmers, etc.

This is a problem that is inherent to our current economic system. We would have it even if we were all Eskimos or Marsh Arabs.

As for my "alternate history", you can reject it as mere speculation. Fine. But what's happening now is hardly speculative.

panjoomby said...

uh, i'd still buy that alternate history novel, dude. cheers!

Sbobet Casino Online said...

I am really enjoying reading your well written articles. It looks like you spend a lot of effort and time on your blog. I have bookmarked it and I am looking forward to reading new articles. Agen Ibcbet Online