The US and Ethnic voting – Why white America (and the rest of the West) has to play the ethnic card to survive


by Robert Henderson
http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/the-us-and-ethnic-voting-why-white-america-and-the-rest-of-the-west-has-to-play-the-ethnic-card-to-survive/

The US and Ethnic voting – Why white America (and the rest of the West) has to play the ethnic card to survive

Robert Henderson

White liberals get dangerously over excited

Even by the demanding standards of adolescent inanity set by them in normal times, white liberals have been getting dangerously over-excited following the Obama re-election. His victory has induced industrial quantities of self-indulgent masochistic politically correct fantasy, revelling in the belief that the USA is locked into an inescapable demographic trap. *[They say that it] will mean, within a generation or two, the end of the white majority and the dominant culture which has shaped the country not only since independence but in the previous one hundred and eighty-odd years of the American colonial experience.(*Edited by blogmaster, to facilitate comprehension and shorten overlong sentences.)

This , the white liberal fondly and ludicrously imagines, will mean the triumph of political correctness with a wondrously multicultural and multiracial USA of the future standing as the very model of social and historical development at its evolutionary summit.

This is truly an epic fantasy. Even if mass immigration does continue and makes whites a minority in the USA it does not follow that the multiculturalist dream of a multiplicity of groups living in harmony will arrive. Indeed, we can be sure it will not, because never in the history of Man has a territory occupied by racially or ethnically differentiated groups produced societal harmony. The best that is ever achieved is an uneasy armistice enforced by a socially and culturally detached (often formally imperial) overlord. The result of increasing the size of various racial or ethnic minorities relative to the white population will not create a rainbow alliance against the white population, but greater competition amongst the ethnic minorities with the largest groups amongst them vying to become the most dominant of the racial or ethnic minorities other than the now minority whites.

This enthusiasm of white liberals for a future in which they are at best reduced to part of a group which is no more than just another ethnic minority in the USA is extended to their claim that inescapable decline is also the fate of the Republican Party, unless, that is, the GOP gets with the right-on programme and begins to pander to blacks, Latinos, gays, feminists , the young and immigrants generally, while dropping any pretence of trying to stem immigration and signing up to all the shibboleths of political correctness. In short, it must cease to be what it has been and just about still is, at least at the grass roots level, a conservative party with a sense of nationhood trying to hold the line against an ever more aggressive political correctness, and become the ideological Tweedledum to the Democratic Party’s Tweedledee. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/9669468/Republicans-may-drop-opposition-to-granting-illegal-immigrants-residency.html).

The chief fly-in-the-ointment for the white liberal’s prescribed redefining of the USA and the GOP is that the demographic future for the USA does not have to be as they paint it. Mass immigration could be stopped if there was the political will and this would at least greatly slow down, the projected demographic shift to whites being in the minority by 2050 or even possibly by the 2040s (http://www.npr.org/2011/06/27/137448906/us-will-have-minority-whites-sooner-says-demographer and http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/08/13/census.minorities/index.html).

Even on the demographic projections put forward by liberals there is no compelling reason to believe that in the next 15 years Republicans will be excluded from controlling Congress if they do not change their policies to radically politically correct ones. In short, there is still considerable time for the GOP to do what is necessary to defeat the supposedly pre-determined US demographic and political future by ending mass immigration and adopting a programme designed to appeal to whites. More on the detail of that later.

The election’s voting patterns

( http://www.people-press.org/2012/11/07/changing-face-of-america-helps-assure-obama-victory/).

The ethnic vote was overwhelmingly for Obama: blacks 93% , Hispanics 71% and Asian s 73%. Obama also captured 55% of female votes and enjoyed a large advantage over Romney amongst younger voters taking 60% of the 18-29 group and 52% of the 30-44 age group. Romney took 59% of the white vote to Obama’s 39%

There are important lessons to be taken from these statistics. A majority formed of several ethnic minority groups is certain to be neither a stable nor a harmonious political constituency simply because there is no example of such a coalition ever being other than this; the overwhelming black support for Obama might well be a phenomenon which attaches itself only to a black candidate; the Hispanic vote is racially disparate and the white Hispanic part of this ethnic group may in time simply see themselves as white Americans rather than hyphenated Americans ; the Asian constituency is still small and disparate and Asians may have voted for Obama to a significant degree simply because much of the group is comprised of recent immigrants and as recent immigrants they will naturally go for the most immigrant friendly candidate, a tendency that will weaken as the generations pass; the youth vote for Obama dropped significantly compared with 2008 and, finally, the split of the female vote gave Obama a healthy but importantly not overwhelming advantage.

The last point is highly significant because women represent the largest group of voters who are supposedly set to consign the Republicans to the dustbin of history unless they change their supposedly outmoded and reactionary ways. A five per cent shift in women voters to the Republicans (something perfectly plausible with different candidates and circumstances ) and the Republican women problem vanishes. This could easily happen. For example, faced with a white non-Hispanic Democratic candidate, the non-white minority female vote could be reduced substantially by female voters failing to vote in such numbers as they have voted for Obama or, less probably, voting for other candidates whether Republican or third party. Another possibility would be a white Hispanic Republican candidate who could capture a large part of the now Hispanic Democratic vote whilst not alienating non-Hispanic white voters.

As for the (under 30) youth vote, 51% of that portion of the white vote went to Romney against 44% to Obama . This reversed the 2008 election where Obama won 54% of the under thirty white vote and McCain 44% (http://www.people-press.org/2012/11/26/young-voters-supported-obama-less-but-may-have-mattered-more/) . This is significant because the substantial drop off for Obama in young white voter support shows how fragile is the race factor in voter preference amongst whites. Obama was a novelty in 2008; he is increasingly seen as just another tired failed politician. Any black candidate in the future will be just another candidate who will not benefit from the immense deference Obama has enjoyed and to a large extent still enjoys from the mainstream media. It is also true that younger voters often change their political allegiances as they grow older, normally by moving from the left to the right.

Generally, if immigration was greatly reduced, the descendants of recent immigrants, of whatever racial and ethnic origin, will have an ever weaker attachment to their ancestral land and culture as the generations pass and the populations of their ancestral lands will seem more alien to them than the general run of Americans. That will weaken their preference for candidates and parties which are soft on immigration because they will no longer think there is a pressing need to bring in more of those from their ancestral lands. The effect of that would be to reduce support for immigration generally amongst ethnic minority groups, because support for immigration amongst recent immigrants is strongly driven by the desire to bring in extended family members and friends. More dramatically, there are many examples of those of immigrant ancestry wishing to pull up the drawbridge to prevent further immigration even where the would-be immigrants are connected by national origin or ethnicity to those opposing their settlement . Anglicised Jews from families long settled in Britain complaining about Jews from Eastern Europe entering in the nineteenth century is e a good historical example of this trait (http://www.movinghere.org.uk/galleries/histories/jewish/journeys/journeys.htm).

Such behaviour is unsurprising, because once an immigrant is in a country any further immigration, especially that of immigrants who are different in race, nationality or ethnicity from those already there, will mean greater competition for jobs, housing, education healthcare and so on. That is a particularly strong motive for immigrants to oppose further immigration if the country they have settled in a First World state with a comprehensive welfare system.

There is also the fact that as ethnicracial solidarity within a country lessens, the willingness of the population to fund welfare weakens (Frank Salter: On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration (http://edna.machighway.com/~franksal/EthnicResearch/Background.html). Mitt Romney was much castigated for saying that 47% of the population were on benefits and would not vote for someone who would not at worst unambiguously support present benefit levels. Contrariwise, Obama offered the promise of continuing welfare benefits. Whether the USA can afford the level of benefits it currently provides is debatable, but there must be some unsustainable limit to public spending. What if the 47% became 60% or 70% who were dependant on benefits? As a matter of simple arithmetic, there has to be a point where benefits simply cannot be maintained let alone increased if the numbers who are net tax contributors become so small they cannot support welfare levels.

That would be a serious difficulty in a very homogeneous society: in an increasingly fragmented one it is a recipe for racial and ethnic strife which at its least violent will see a reluctance by the ethnic and racial groups least benefitting from taxpayer-funded schemes becoming more ever more reluctant to fund such spending. In addition, those within ethnic and racial groups who have done better will almost certainly tend to see themselves in class terms rather than ethnic or racial terms. It is also true that the spread of wealth and poverty within ethnic and racial groups can and almost certainly will change over the years. There is no perpetual advantage or disadvantage for any particular group. The implications of that are two:

Romney as a candidate

There were numerous drawbacks to Romney as a candidate. He is a rich man who made his wealth in the now widely despised and hated financial industry. He is a leading member of a religion with cultish elements which troubles even mainstream Christian voters. He has a tin ear for what should not be said when you are courting the general public, most notably his claim (mentioned above) at a fund-raising dinner that 47% of voters were never going to vote for him because they were dependent on taxpayer-funded goodies. In an electoral race where personality counts for so much he comes across most of the time as wooden and incapable of engaging with voters. In truth, he was pretty poor as a campaigner and unimpressive as a public personality ( http://www.people-press.org/2012/11/13/lessons-from-the-2012-election/).

But there was more to his deficiencies than that. Romney also added radical policy shifts on subjects with a good deal of traction right across the US electorate . He moved from being what is politely called a moderate Republican (translation closet liberal) on subjects such as immigration and gay marriage to a significantly less pc line. Many liberal commentators are now arguing that this made him unelectable because it alienated Hispanics, blacks, gays, the young and women. More plausible reasons for Romney not benefitting from those policy shifts are either people not believing his change of heart was sincere or thinking that Romney was not being coherent and full hearted in presenting his new “hardline” views. Such behaviour probably lost him votes on both sides of the US political divide.

There was also a general air of diffidence about Romney, as though his heart was not wholly in the fight or even that he might be scared of the post of President. Interestingly, since the election media reports suggest that Romney was a very reluctant candidate:

After failing to win the 2008 Republican nomination, Mr Romney told his family he would not run again and had to be persuaded to enter the 2012 White House race by his wife Ann and son Tagg.

“He wanted to be president less than anyone I’ve met in my life. He had no desire… to run,” Tagg Romney said. “If he could have found someone else to take his place… he would have been ecstatic to step aside.”

Mitt Romney “is a very private person who loves his family deeply and wants to be with them. He loves his country, but he doesn’t love the attention,” his son said. ‘ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9764312/Mitt-Romney-didnt-want-to-run-for-president-son-claims.html). If true, that will have been signalled to voters by the unconscious signals which humans cannot control such as body language and vocal traits.

In addition to benefitting from Romney’s considerable weaknesses, Obama had in his favour the fact that he was the sitting president. Since 1945 only Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Bush senior in 1992 have failed to gain re-election. He also had the reduced but still significant boost from the fact that he was the first black president. Balanced against that Obama had presided over the most difficult US economic situation since the 1930s for four years, but as the recession started during the term of a Republican president and in the public mind, at least at the headline level, was created by bankers and their ilk who were generally Republican supporters, voters seem to have widely accepted that this was a mess not created by Obama. They may have blamed Obama for not ending the economic troubles, but they blamed the last Bush administration more. In these circumstances Romney’s past as an investment fund manager made him by proxy part of the cause of the present mess in the eyes of many voters.

Despite the balance of electoral college advantage lying heavily with Obama his win on the popular vote was not massive:

Obama 64,428,975 (50.80%)

Romney 60,227,548 ( 47.49%)

Total vote 126,832,750

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

It really was not an impressive win in terms of popular support. The split between the candidates in electoral college votes was vast 332 to 206, but many of the Obama state wins were narrow ones. If approximately 850,000 Obama voters spread over the closely contested states had switched to Romney he would have won. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/liamhalligan/9770870/The-US-cliff-one-small-part-of-a-huge-debt-crisis.html)

There have also been numerous complaints about machine voting with claims that voting machines registered for Obama when Romney was selected, for example, Any form of machine voting is difficult to check for faults, wilful or otherwise. Machine voting which relies on computers make meaningfully checks of flaws or deliberately introduced biases into voting all but impossible. There were also doubts raised by very high Obama voting and voter registration in particular districts (http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/did-voter-fraud-swing-election/) . Whether any of these complaints are indicative of wilful or widespread fraud remains to be seen, but if widespread irregularities favouring Obama are demonstrated then future elections may be more closely scrutinised and the chance for fraud reduced. This could aid Republican candidates if voter fraud is more prevalent amongst Democrats than Republicans. In the 2012 elections this appears to be the case, because complaints by Democrats against Republicans alleging voting irregularities favouring them are thin on the ground.

In summary, there are no compelling reasons to believe that the groups which failed to provide sufficient support for Romney would behave in the same way towards a future Republican presidential candidate in the next fifteen to twenty years, especially one faced with a Democratic candidate who was not black.

The demographics

It might be thought from the liberal media excitement that whites are on the brink of becoming a minority group in the USA. In fact they still form the large majority of the population.

The 2010 US census arrived at a figure of 308.7 million, an increase of 27.3 million people since the 2000 census ( Table 1 http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf – all references to 2010 census statistics come from this PDF file) . This represented an increase of 9.7% over ten years. The non-Hispanic white population increased numerically from 194.6 million to 196.8 in those years (63.7% of the population). Moreover, whites in the USA also include large numbers of Hispanics, this being a classification based on ethnicity not race. The census counted 50.5 million Hispanics of which 26,735,713 are white (Table 2) . This raised the white component of the population in 2010 to 223,553,265 or 72.4% of the entire US population (Table 1)).

It is true that white Hispanics may have a general group solidarity with Hispanics of a different race or a mixture of races, but as pointed out previously, with the passing of the generations the descendants of immigrants become less and less engaged with the ancestral homeland. That is particularly so where there is neither racial difference from the dominant population in a territory or a wilful attempt to stand aside from a dominant culture such as that made by orthodox Jews.

The other fly in the demographic ointment for liberals is the number of people qualified to vote who did not vote. The latest (2011) US census estimate of the total US population is 311,591,917. (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html). Those under 18 constitute 23.7% of the population or approximately 72 million people. Not all of those will be US citizens but the vast majority will be. It would be reasonable to assume the potential voter population is at worst around 225 million. At the presidential election just past on 126 million voted. That means 100 million-odd white votes are presently up for grabs.

As the US becomes more and more polarised along ethnic and racial lines, the likelihood is that voting will increase. But an increase in voting will not necessarily be uniform. While they are the majority, whites can vote for white favouring candidates and policies without any conflict of interests for a party or candidate offering pro-white policies can gain election simply by appealing successfully to enough white voters. The same is not true of the various minority populations. They will all be competing for political attention with different demands and needs. No single party or candidate is going to be able to satisfy these disparate claims. Already there is friction between blacks (the largest racial minority) and Hispanics (the largest ethnic minority) over the spoils of positive discrimination, something which is likely to intensify if the Hispanic population continues to swell and Asians (admittedly a very mixed group) increase as predicted.

The other thing in favour of the white population is that even on the most aggressive demographic predictions of the point at which Non-Hispanic whites are in the minority allows for at least a another generation to pass before it occurs and quite possibly not until 2050. In addition, there is the possibility previously mentioned of white Hispanics simply becoming Americans in a generation or two. That would delay the point of white minority status even further. All of this means that there is plenty of time for both the Republican Party and whites generally to act to change the demographic future by voting for candidates and parties which will control immigration and cease to pander to ethnic and racial minorities.

But even if the white population (whether defined as non-Hispanic whites or whites including white Hispanics) becomes a minority it would remain by far the largest minority for a considerable time. That could bring into play the a coalition of whites and one or two smaller partners to create a white dominated political grouping which excluded the largest of the non-white minorities. That would leave the white population in a position of considerable power.

A programme to maintain the white majority

In principle any party in the USA, whether existing or new, could adopt the programme, but it is unrealistic to expect a new party to arise which can challenge the duopoly of Democrats and Republicans and the Democrats are wedded, at least for the foreseeable future, to the politically correct ideology, the only real option for change in the USA lies with the Republicans.

The logical and natural thing for the Republican Party to do is what neither they nor any other mainstream party in the developed world has done is to play the racial/ethnic political game by unambiguously appealing to whites in the USA. To be effective the political platform would have to be adopted by Republican candidates across the political board not merely by presidential candidates.

At the core of this appeal to the white majority must be a promise of an end to mass immigration of those who cannot be assimilated into the American mainstream to prevent the demographic advantage of the white majority being further seriously eroded. This promise must be accompanied with a credible plan to prevent further mass immigration of the unassimilatable . That would require both practical measures such as the building and ample manning of a truly formidable barrier along the entire length of the Mexico/US border, the strengthening of coastal surveillance and the proper policing small airfields. In addition a change in the federal immigration policy to allow immigration to revert to something similar to what it was before the passing of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished the country of origin quotas established by the Immigration Act of 1924. This had limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890. That would favour white immigrants. None of that would require a constitutional amendment . It would be useful if the constitution could be amended to remove automatic US citizenship from those born of non-citizens on US territory. However, constitutional amendments are notoriously difficult to make.

There is also the question of the millions of illegal immigrants already in the USA. The claim that they could not possibly be forcibly removed because of the numbers is not a self-evident truth. In 1954 Operation Wetback (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html) saw more than 1 million Latin Americans (mainly Mexicans) leave the USA either as a result of arrest and forced deportation or by illegal immigrants choosing to leave for fear of being arrested. This was achieved by a border force of little more than 1,000. Whether the expulsion of millions today would be the best course of action – it could be plausibly argued (although not by me) that it would be smarter to accept those who are already in the country and concentrate on future immigration, thus giving those already here some incentive to accept the new regime without protest – but it is manifestly not impossible to expel very large numbers of people when there is the political will and the place to where they are being deported shares a border with the expelling country. A large-scale expulsion of illegal immigrants from the USA would of itself signal more than any other act the Federal Government could take to the white population that at last a party was willing to act on their behalf.

Other inducements for whites to vote for a party which promised to defend their immediate and long term interests would be a pledge to make illegal all forms of “positive” discrimination, overt or covert, and the provision of any form of taxpayer funded state aid at every level from the federal downwards , whether that be welfare , healthcare or education , to illegal immigrants . None of that would be unconstitutional because such changes would not mean that anyone would be treated less favourably than any other. Indeed, it would return to the status quo of the constitution under which all citizens are equal in terms of the civic rights at least.

A change in the language used by the GOP when dealing with race and ethnic issues would also be necessary. Trying to fit non-pc ideas into a pc framework or speaking the language of political correctness one moment and putting forward non-pc ideas at another and being awkward whenever challenged about views which are not considered entirely pc creates uncertainty in the white voter’s mind. Nor can such equivocation inspire any white American to believe that at last there are politicians willing to speak up for white American (one might say American) interests and needs. To re-capture the trust of white Americans Republican politicians must state unambiguously that both they and their party are jettisoning political correctness, especially that part of political correctness which relates to the suppression of white America’s interests and the legal privileging of ethnic and racial minorities. Not only must they make clear that political correctness is being discarded not because it is outmoded or impractical, but from a belief that it is a totalitarian creed whose central tenet of non-discrimination affects every aspect of life and whose imposition of necessity requires the suppression of any other view. Republicans should constantly reinforce the absolute necessity for free expression in a democracy and the value of the First Amendment.

Such an approach does not mean turning back the clock forty years or so and simply saying this is what should be done or that observed as a cultural practice. The appeal should be to what humans understand without being told: that men and women have different priorities, that the idea of same sex marriage is wrong because it both does violence to language and permits those with political power to indulge in the sinister practice of deciding the meaning of words and, most importantly, a recognition of the tribal nature of human beings. Republicans should base their appeal on freedom and personal choice and contrast this with the demands made by political correctness which says only the politically correct view is to be permitted. Above all, they must make clear that the values and general culture of the founding and ancestral white population of the USA are precious things which the white population have both the right and ability to defend. They should invite the ethnic and racial minorities already in the USA to embrace those values and culture, to become not hyphenated Americans but simply Americans. A law, or even better a constitutional amendment, stating that English was the national language of the USA and genuine fluency in it a requirement for American citizenship would be a good start to achieving this.

The programme I have sketched would have great appeal to the white American population which in the main does not believe in the politically correct agenda . White Americans pay lip service to the creed or stay silent about their dislike and resentment of its enforcement for fear of losing jobs, being denied jobs, suffering socially ostracism (because those held up as politically incorrect become objects of fear to others), attracting civil suits for damages or even facing the force of the criminal law. Once mainstream politicians have the courage to attack political correctness regularly and unashamedly in an intelligent manner, some of the mainstream media at least will come on board and the ordinary white American will lose their fear and their long pent-up resentment at what has been done to their country over the past fifty years will be released as water from a breaking dam.

The adoption of such a platform by the GOP would put the Democratic Party in a very difficult position. When first put forward it would force Democrats to make a very difficult decision: would they unashamedly go after the ethnic minority vote to counter the GOP’s appeal to the white majority? If Democrats did decide to do this they would alienate some, perhaps many, of the white Democrat voters because they would have to say in effect , look ethnic and racial minorities, vote for us because the Republicans are not going to pander to you but we shall continue to do so and offer you even more. Even if the Democrats simply remained clutching their present policies which are attractive to ethnic and racial minorities, they would also be likely to lose substantial numbers of white voters because they would have nothing new to offer white voters to counteract the white enticing programme of the Republicans.

If the Democrats lost substantial ground amongst white Americans they would almost certainly start to shift their own policies away from political correctness and towards the new programme of the Republicans. That would help to move the political debate and language away from political correctness towards reality.

The rest of the West

What applies to the USA holds true for the rest of the white developed world. The programme I suggest for the Republican Party (or any other US party in principle) applies with equal force to any other state with a largely homogeneous native white population which has been diluted by and fractured by mass immigration. In many such states the task will be politically easier than it is in the USA because, unlike the USA , their political systems are based on elections which do not have the complication of an electoral college. They may elect an executive president by a simple one round of voting popular vote or some form of the popular vote mediated by several rounds of voting or multiple choice voting. Alternatively there will be a parliamentary system such as the UK’s elected by first-past-the post or some form of proportional representation with the executive within the legislature.

The other advantages many First World countries have over the USA are two: their parties are more coherent and unified in ideology and organisation than those of the USA and they are much smaller countries, a fact that makes it much easier to create a party with the unified programme that is required.

In principle, the UK would be best placed amongst larger First World countries to create such a party and have its programme followed through. This is because the UK has no written constitution; no superior constitutional law (any law passed by Parliament has the same status and can be repealed by a simple Act of Parliament); no executive head of state; a first-past-the-post electoral system for the main Parliamentary chamber (the House of Commons ) and an executive drawn, with one or two exceptions, from the House of Commons. It is true that the UK is presently enmeshed in the EU and various other treaties and conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on Refugees, but these could all be abrogated and repudiated by a simple Act of Parliament.

The main barrier to political change resulting in the protection of the interests of the white native majorities in the USA, the UK and elsewhere is informal, a matter of political ideology and custom. If the political will exists, the change can be effected.

Another “End of History”

The predictions made by white liberals about the USA’s political future based on demographic projections and extrapolations from voting patterns over a few elections are as absurdly dogmatic and fanciful as those made in Francis Fukuyama’s 1989 article The end of history? This, readers will remember, maintained that liberal internationalism was the pinnacle of human social development and that the long march of human social evolution had come to a halt (http://www.kropfpolisci.com/exceptionalism.fukuyama.pdf). Wittingly or not, the present outpouring of liberal triumphalist glee is an offshoot of the Fukuyamian world view which itself was in the line of historicist claims that history was not simply a series of random events but a process which had some ultimate end, willed either by God or an ineluctable consequence of cause and effect.

Fukuyama did not foresee a cessation of strife in the near future. Rather, he engaged in something altogether more ambitious and arrogant. He worked from the premise that liberal democracy was an inevitable consequence of the evolution of human social organisation. A few quotes will give a flavour of Fukuyama’s mentality:

“ The triumph of the West, of the Western idea, is evident first of all in the total exhaustion of viable systematic alternatives to Western liberalism…”

“What we may be witnessing in not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. This is not to say that there will no longer be events to fill the pages of Foreign Affairs’s yearly summaries of international relations, for the victory of liberalism has occurred primarily in the realm of ideas or consciousness and is as yet incomplete in the real or material world. But there are powerful reasons for believing that it is the ideal that will govern the material world in the long run. To understand how this is so, we must first consider some theoretical issues concerning the nature of historical change.”

“…at the end of history it is not necessary that all societies become successful liberal societies, merely that they end their ideological pretensions of representing different and higher forms of human society.”

“But it is not clear that nationalism re resents an irreconcilable contradiction in the heart of liberalism. In the first place, nationalism is not one single phenomenon but several, ranging from mild cultural nostalgia to the highly organized and elaborately articulated doctrine of National Socialism. Only systematic nationalisms of the latter sort can qualify as a formal ideology on the level of liberalism or communism. The vast majority of the world’s nationalist movements do not have a political program beyond the negative desire of independence from some other group or people, and do not offer anything like a comprehensive agenda for socio-economic organization. As such, they are compatible with doctrines and ideologies that do offer such agendas. While they may constitute a source of conflict for liberal societies, this conflict does not arise from liberalism itself so much as from the fact that the liberalism in question is incomplete. Certainly a great deal of the world’s ethnic and nationalist tension can be explained in terms of peoples who are forced to live in unrepresentative political systems that they have not chosen…”

“The automatic assumption that Russia shorn of its expansionist communist ideology should pick up where the czars left off just prior to the Bolshevik Revolution is therefore a curious one. It assumes that the evolution of human consciousness has stood still in the meantime, and that the Soviets, while picking up currently fashionable ideas in the realm of economics, will return to foreign policy views a century out of date in the rest of Europe.”

“The end of history will be a very sad time. The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one’s life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism, will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands. In the post-historical period there will be neither art nor philosophy, just the perpetual caretaking of the museum of human history. I can feel in myself, and see in others around me, a powerful nostalgia for the time when history existed. Such nostalgia, in fact, will continue to fuel competition and conflict even in the post-historical world for some time to come. Even though I recognize its inevitability, I have the most ambivalent feelings for the civilization that has been created in Europe since 1945, with its north Atlantic and Asian offshoots. Perhaps this very prospect of centuries of boredom at the end of history will serve to get history started once again.”

Immediately they were published Fukuyama’s ideas struck me as pathologically naïve . He was peddling the idea of predestined human social and intellectual evolution favoured in their different ways by Hegel and Marx (who famously claimed to have turned Hegel on his head by substituting the material and the empirically verifiable for Hegel’s idealist philosophy of the whole. with the clash and evolution of ideas as the driving force of history for history as the product of causal relations and class conflict, not dialectical conflict between ideas. Hegel’s ideology is at best incomplete because he ignores events which have no human agency and has no means of verification of when the end (the realisation of the whole through the dialectic) is ultimately achieved and logically inconsistent in his political theory which lauds the nation state because if the most perfect reality is the whole, then world government not the nation state is closer to reality (and hence closer to perfection) than the nation state. Marx, unlike Hegel, produced a theory which could be tested by events and has been found wholly wanting by the historical story told over the past two centuries.

That Fukuyama , unlike Marx and Hegel, felt a quiet dismay at the likely consequences of his analysis of social evolution is neither here nor there in terms of the mentality he peddled. It may be a soulless unexciting world he sees unfolding inexorably , but the message is the same as earlier progenitors of what might be called mechanical sociology envisaged: this is how it is going to be in the long run and there is nothing anyone can do to prevent it. Add in Fukuyama’s allowance that eventually “history” may begin again and there is a clear parallel in the idea of the physical universe moving towards a state of absolute entropy before perhaps rewinding to begin the process of expansion all over again. It is chocolate box sociology/philosophy with no need for the individual to search further for any explanation of what needs to be done or what might be done for the best. All the human race has to do is lie back and accept whatever the social laws of motion dictate .

But although Fukuyama was dismayed at the future, that is not true of the legionaries of the one-world ideal where there are no nations, no nation states, no borders and ultimately no distinction between people regardless of race or ethnicity. That idea, as unexciting as it may be to Fukuyama, has a religious intensity for true one-worlders. That is for several reasons. First, it is the working towards a goal, a goal moreover which is assured and promises a world which, for the one-worlder, will be perfect (or at least greatly superior to what now exists) when it is reached. That has the intensely exciting and liberating effect of absolving the true believers from responsibility for the here and now. It also fosters the idea that anything which is done now is legitimate regardless of its moral consequences in much the same way that Marxists decried “bourgeois morality”, that is morality, and permitted any atrocity provided it was part of the historical motor which drove society to its final and perfect end. Moreover, even if the one-worlders believe that is the inevitable end of human society they may also believe, as Marxists do, that despite the inevitability of the final end the speed at which it arrives may be hastened by conscious action on the part of its adherents. They could even imagine that their actions and words are part of the inexorable movement of history and they can do no other than they do. It is worth noting the similarities between Marxism and the one-worlders, because the adherents of the latter are the type of people who thirty years ago would have been Marxists.

The danger of ideologies

The dangers of ideologies such as those of Hegel, Marx and Fukuyama lies not in how close an approximation to reality they are. It would not have mattered what they had predicted because all of historical experience shows that it is inherently impossible to predict even the broad march of human history let alone its specific organisational detail. That this is so should surprise no one. All any person has to do to realise that prediction is a mug’s game is to look at their own lives and they will see how often, no matter how intelligent and erudite they may be, that they can no more reliably predict what will happen to them over the course of their own lives than they could regularly predict winning horses or the results of the lottery.

Anyone who allows themselves to become the prisoner of an ideology whether sacred or profane is dangerous. That is because no ideology is a complete description of the world and the attempt to accommodate an ideology to reality must result in fantasy, a fantasy which the ideologue insists on forcing upon others if he has the power to do so. The most dangerous ideologies are those which say there is an definite and inescapable end which cannot be altered by human agency.

But there is a difference of great significance between the ideology of Hegel and Marx or the Fukuyanan belief that liberal democracy is the sociological end game and the claims being put forward by liberals about the Republican Party and more broadly about political correctness. There is an aspect of political correctness which distinguishes the claim that if the Republican Party (or any other party in other advanced countries ) does not embrace political correctness uncritically and unambiguously it is heading for extinction because of demographic change as something which could be determined by those who support the multiculturalist cause. If there is no party in a country which will take action against further mass immigration of those who will not or cannot integrate then the numerical dominance of the majority native population will be steadily eroded until it becomes a minority or even a small majority of the population That is a very real danger in a small country such as Norway.

The liberal voices calling for the Republicans to “wake up and smell the ethnic coffee” and get with the multiculturalist project are siren voices. They are asking whites in the US to commit political suicide by allowing ethnic victimhood to become the driving force of their party as well as that of Democrats. That would remove any chance of an effective stand against mass immigration. The logic of USA ethnic and racial change tells the Republicans to use the still white majority to safeguard their position as soon as possible by stemming further mass immigration. Ethnic and racial politics may be toxic, but if that is what all the other players in the field are peddling except you, then you have to play the same game as a matter of national self-preservation.

Will Republicans seize the day and embrace their only rational way forward, to become the standard bearer for white America? It is a tremendous psychological hill for them to climb because of the past fifty years of every growing political correctness and sectional politics which have pushed the interests of the white majority not simply to the back of the room but under the carpet. Left to their own devices Republican politicians might well accept the fate laid upon them by white liberals and their ethnic minority auxiliaries. But they may well not be left to their own devices because hard economic times are making white Americans angrier and angrier at the way they have been betrayed by their elite.

Following Obama’s re-election there have been petitions gathering substantial numbers of signatures in many US states arguing for the State’s secession from the USA. (http://rt.com/usa/news/petition-white-house-secede-688/). These are just expressions of exasperation by white Americans at present , but they are indicative of a growing sense among whites that there is no way to alter matters within the Union. If mainstream American politicians remain divorced from the wishes of the still white majority demands for secession may become more than an expression of exasperation.

It is not inconceivable that the USA could fracture if mass immigration, especially from Latin America, is allowed to continue . If that happens territory is what counts. The most striking thing about the US Presidential Election map is this, a large majority of physical territory voted Republican. In the end control of physical territory, whether through the overt exercise of power or the passive fact of being the dominant population by numbers in the territory, is the most important fact about any state. Keep a grip on that fact.

About these ads

32 responses to “The US and Ethnic voting – Why white America (and the rest of the West) has to play the ethnic card to survive

  1. Good article.

  2. He might not be far off the mark. I’m sure I read somewhere that some disaffected citizens have begun a campaign to take their state out of the Union. I just can’t remember which one at the minute

  3. If the vote is racial then why did such lily white States as Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont vote for Obama?

    He has no personal connection with any of these States (and neither does anyone close to him) – and the Democrat Convention was held hundreds of milies away (in North Carolina – which Obama lost).

    Even in the late 19th century the Democrats supported ethnic voting – and the Republicans opposed it.

    And not just in the South – in the big cities the Democrats specialised in handing goodies to various ethnic groups. X number of jobs for the Irish,. Y number of jobs for the Italians (and on and on).

    Repulicans can not compete on handing out goodies (Dems will always promise more) – they can only compete by GETTING ELECTIONS AWAY FROM THIS “WANT FREE STUFF” TACTIC.

    If Republicans try and play the game of ethnic voting they will lose.

    Partly because Republicans are usless at this racist stuff (they are basically useless at poltiical trickery of any sort – even Richard Nixon did not lie more than his foes, he just sweated more [perhaps because of his Quaker background - which, perhaps, made him ashamed of himself], in short he was a BAD liar – so he should not have lied at all)..

    But also because the ethnic balance in the United States is changing.

    And with a border thousands of milies lone (the rivers along the border are so small that even I could cross them – and without a boat) effective border control is not really possible.

    For example – presently Republicans dominate Texas (the Governorship, both Senators, most seats in Congress, both Houses of the State Legislature….).

    Yet most people in Texas are almost certainly not “white” (unlike some States I could name – which are lily white, and the Democrats control everything).

    So these “how did you vote?” opinion polls do not really stand up – if one actually examines them.

    But what would happen if the Republicans followed a racist election policy?

    Well such people as the Governors of South Carolina, Nevada and New Mexico (all non white Republicans) would go away. As would people such as Senator Tim Scott (who was a very good Congressman – and will be a very good Senator) and Senator Cruz. And on and on (it is often “forgotten”, “memory hole” style by the media, that there are more senior elected Republican hispanics than Democrat ones – and many elected black Republicans also)

    And, every year (as the proportion of “white” people in the voting public declines) so the Republican party will get a smaller and smaller share of the vote.

    Racism simply is not a practical option for the Republican party.

    Elections must be faught on POLICY, on PRINIPLES.

    Not on SKIN COLOUR.

    Otherwise the Republican party is doomed.

    And more than just a party would be doomed.

    Such places as Texas (and the States of the United States) woud be doomed also.

    Racism is simply not PRACTICAL given North American geography.

    There are no clear natural borders – just thousands of miles of open country.

    That does not mean one should do nothing.

    One should get rid of such things as “free” schools and “free” emergency health care (and other things that attract future dependents).

    But close the borders?

    How could that be done?

    They are too big (and too open) to close.

    The Republican has always been mocked as someone with a pistol in one hand, the Bible in the other, and their (well used) account book shoved in their back pocket.

    But historically (as even the socalist inspired “Middletown”, really Munsie Indiana, socialogical studies admitted) it was never a RACIST partry.

    The Republican may have “God on his lips – and his bank account on his mind”, and love his firearms very, very much. After all the NRA was created by Republicans and remains Republican dominated to this day – indeed the early clashes between the NRA and the KKK (they were founded at the same time) were over efforts at “Gun Control” in the South (i.e. efforts to legally disarm blacks – and leave the helpless victims). Even as late as the 1960s Condi Rice’s father scared off KKK people with his firearm – this is the same Condi Rice who had childhood friends blown to pieces in one of the infamous Alabama church bombings.

    Republican men and women (contrary to the lies of the education system and the media) have never been the racist party.

    Indeed (in the history that is fogotten) it was the Republicans who were the anti lynching party – campaiging against it from the late 19th century to the 1950s.

    It was only really in the 1960s that Democrats suddenly discovered “Civil Rights” (and at first – only a minority of Democrats).

    But then the Democrats twisted the concept – turning it from a concept of INDIVIDUAL rights to a concept of ETHNIC GROUP rights.

    Anyone familar with Democrat history would not have been astonished with this develpment. And YES they have been astonishing successful – in their normal “vote for us and get free stuff” and “we love you – the other party hates you, they represent the other skin colour” polticial tactics. Although the brainwashing of the schools (and the media) have been central to this.

    Even as late as the 1950s blacks in cities such as Philly were overwhelmingly conservative (indeed newspapers targeted at this community gave famous conservative and libertarian writers, such as I. Paternson and Rose Wilder Lane, a platform). All this is forgotten now – shoved down the memory hole by the modern media and education system.

    For Republicans to go down with Democrats into the gutter of enthic politics (just favouring “whites” rather than “blacks” and “browns”) would be tragic.

    Utterly tragic.

    Espcially as “free stuff” poltics is going to lead to bankruptcy.

    And will lead to it very soon.

  4. By the way….

    The best way to DISCREDIT a secessionist movement is to brand it “racist” or “neo Confederate”.

    Want to make Barack Obama’s day?

    Then carry on with this ethnic politics stuff.

    That is meat and drink for the left.

  5. Robert, that is a very long article. I have written articles of such length myself before now, but unfortunately, the way of the world means that not all that many people are going to wade through it all.

    Anyway, I generally share the idea laid out. The latter part about breaking up the United States, or re-defining the borders to suit a new structure, is one of the most interesting development ideas.

    The socialists and the marxists, the general stereotype ‘pinko liberals’ (or whatever the right collectivism is) can then have a free choice to cross the border and live in their experiment, rather than try and inflict it on a new society which has been smart enough to reject it for their own future interests.

    It has already been discussed at length on various other sites how the American party should not start to pander to ethnic minority voters, and instead cut their material to suit the white voters.

    I think that is right, not that I think such a (so far cowardly and duplicitous) party should survive. They should crash and burn like the Conservative party here in Britain should crash and burn for their treachery and uselessness.

    I am sure you will have seen the recent memos and articles in the Telegraph here, regarding the Conservative party and its need to pander to ethnic minority groups and other speciality groups in order for the party to survive. They too are riding the disaster train.

    The Conservatives have been utterly useless in “conserving” anything. William Hague at the time of the Conservative Conference was interviewed and gloated about how they were now more “socially inclusive” than Labour, how the Conservatives always “adapted with the times” {an admission that they have LOST the battles and had to change tact} for the last 200 years or so, and rhymed off a stream of liberal rhetoric.

    UKIP are essentially the Conservatives of the 1970s. They still do not “get it” when it comes to the matter of what a nation truly is, and the matter of identity. They will ultimately be just as wet and useless, ever playing “catch up” to the “progressive” agenda.

    America and Britain need a political, ideological and societal revolution that would take care of the indigenous people of Britain and the founding demographic of America as we have known it.

    The basic fact of the matter is – no matter how ‘repulsive’ people find it – that there are a substantial proportion of people in this country (and America) who are NOT happy with the way things are going.

    Are they to have to say? Who is going to stand up for their rights and their survival as a group?

    None of the main parties do this. Demographically in this country, the ones who OBJECT to what is happening to this country, are too spread out and thus too marginalised to properly get their voices heard.

    The choices of party they can vote for are pretty slim, and not always that brilliant when it comes to how they operate or present themselves.

    Voter apathy kicks in too, as well as the “wasted vote” thing, where they would rather vote for the traitorous Conservatives than let Labour back in. It is a tragedy, and shows we do not effectively have a democracy.

    So what are indigenous whites who care about the survival of their nation and people supposed to do? I can tell you, it gets many people extremely bitter and angry. They have been backed into a corner with no options available to them.

    London is no longer a truly English city, Luton is not either, Leicester is ‘gone’ as well. Birmingham and Manchester are next, at around 58% and 53% white. They will be lost to the indigenous demographic within the next ten years. As will a whole range of other places.

    It may make some “anti-racists” (anti-whites) laugh, but there is already discussion about the ethnically English having to relocate to establish a civilisation in a new land.

    There are already concepts of pioneering areas and localities in the meantime which aim to stave off the onslaught and effectively become pockets of resistance, because they want their people to survive.

    It can take two to three decades to set such things up, and that is all the time we have left as a majority group, 25 to 28 years. Only a fraction of those are not anti-whites (or are not racial nihilists through apathy).

    That is why they are starting to talk about our options now.

    That is how bad it is getting. The successive governments of both parties have inflicted ethnocide against the original and definable inhabitants.There is no other outcome to what they have unleashed.

    How well is “libertarianism” taking hold with the imported Somalis, Pakistanis, Roma Gypsies, Nigerians, Indonesians, Chinese, Bangladeshi, Afghanis, Congolese, Zimbabweans, Turkish, Afro Caribbean, and all the other groups saturating this country?

    I bet there are next to none.

    There may be a few, but a bet it is a fraction of the majority who are libertarians or susceptible to it.

    Nor will they be particularly interested in old English customs, rights, attitudes, or systems based on principles of our forefathers. In my view, obviously.

    When the Conservative party dies off (or morphs even further into being the Labour party and effectively dies off in another way), when more cities are lost to the white demographic, I suspect Libertarianism in this country will also be kissing its ass goodbye.

    It is sad, but that is how this cookie is going to crumble I reckon.

    I hope the racially aware and race-realist Americans can hatch an escape plan so that they too are not swallowed up piecemeal.

    I just hope it is not going to be another case of the “Fable of the Ducks and the Hens” when it does happen.

  6. Concerned Briton – It is indeed a sad fact that getting most people to read anything longer than a headline is an increasingly difficult task. Nonetheless, it is necessary to develop ideas at length because the battle of ideas is not won within the general public but between the relatively small number of people willing and able to devote time and thought to politics.

    I shall in the next month or so write a shorter piece concentrating solely on the programme, strategy and tactics which any white majority supporting party anywhere should adopt and practise.

  7. I repeat that nothing is used to DISCREDIT the idea of secesssion (indeed any big government position at all) more than the charge of “racism”.

    To talk in terms of LUMPS (collectivtive abstractions) such as “white voters” (such as those of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont…..?) “black voters” (and so on) is not just mistaken – it PLAYS INTO THE HANDS OF THE LEFT.

    They want want to call anti big government people “racists” and you play right into their hands.

    It is astonishing (utterly astonishing) that people who call themselves libertarians (on a site that calls itself libertarian) could act in such a stupid and self destructive fashion.

    By all means a State should be allowed to seceed to get lower taxes, government spending and regulations.

    But as soon as you talk in RACIAL terms – you make that IMPOSSIBLE.

    You play right into the hands of people who (falsely) claim that being anit big government is just “disguised racism”.

    Most of the time this “Libertarian Alliance” website seems to specialise in producing stuff that discredits libertarianism. Indeed discredits any smaller government position.

    EIther by associating it with economies-of-scale-do-not-exist Kevinism – or by associating it racialism.

    Why do that?

  8. Julie near Chicago

    Paul is 1000% about the disaster that will ensue if the ideas of limited, small government and the need to defend our natural rights (or whatever you prefer to call them) are bolstered by appeals to racial or ethnic solidarity, so that in the mind of John Q. Public (or at least the newspapers), we have not only the name, unfairly ascribed to us as it is, but also the game–thereby proving that the name is NOT unfairly ascribed.

    In other words, don’t give the Bad Guys ammo!

    We do need to keep certain of our beliefs, traditions, and customs alive in the hearts of our people–but “our people” are not some subgroup based on race or ethnicity, nor religion (or its absence) either; there are many of all three kinds of Indians, East, West, and American, who ARE Americans, for instance; they know something of our country’s history and they buy most of the best of our social and political values, and they enjoy American life AS Americans. The same is true of so-called “blacks,” and of Japanese and Koreans and other Asians…certain Iranians…even Esquimaux *g*.

    Except for the Eskimos *g*, I imagine the same is true of Britain.

    It’s not a question of ethnicity, it’s a question of culture…and you don’t have to be “white,” nor of European ancestry, to be an American in belief and values, not just in-name-only. You don’t even have to give up enjoying the traditions of your personal ethnical or religious heritage. You only have to behave in accordance with the ethics and the politics expressing it that constitute the core of American belief. And I think the same is true of Britain and the British…if I haven’t expressed myself so badly as to be incomprehensible.

    None of that constitutes a bar to secession, as I hope is obvious. I’m just saying a group of people can share a philosophy, and political goals, and hold viewpoints in broad agreement, without being all of the same race, or color, or religion, or ethnicity.

  9. Julie- unwittingly doubtless, but you have just come out with your hands up to surrender to the pc army. . It is not that ethnic politics is pretty, merely that if all the minorities in a country are playing that game but your group then you and your group are lost.

  10. Julie near Chicago

    Well, I understand that that’s your position, Robert, but I’m not going to tell Allen West or Joe Hicks or Thomas Sowell that he can’t play with our group because he’s not “white.” I’m not going to exclude my Japanese friends on the grounds that they’re not “American” in some sense–despite that they were born in America, of American parents. Or that they’re not of European ancestry (“ethnicity”).

    From where I sit, you’re letting yourself be stampeded by a bunch of malinformed and, worse, malTRAINED “inner-city blacks,” not to put too fine a point on it. That’s Obama’s and the tranzi left’s core clientele (or, if you prefer, livestock), if you include in the number the people in the third-world who’ve been trained (largely by the Soviets, but now by that same tranzi Left and their dupes) to hate the west on the grounds of 18th- and 19th-century imperialism.

    And when you run like that, you leave behind you a whole lot of folks who are still trying to make sense of it all, but who have the potential to side with you in the end.

    Remember, this whole “race” business has taken decades of hard toil to get going again–toil by the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons and the leftists (yes, goaded by communists overt or not), to get said core to behave badly enough that large numbers of Americans would get fed up with it. Many people back at the time Affirmative Action was passed saw a “white backlash” coming. But it didn’t really take off until Obama came along and stirred things up from his bully pulpit. And now it’s nibbling, slowly only, around the edges.

    We have to avoid that no matter what, because of the many non-European types who still share our culture and our values and will come aboard, if we don’t start throwing them off the ship.

    And that’s how I see it.

  11. Yes Julie.

    As Chalres M. (of “Losing Ground”) noted when he visited some British towns and cities (pinkish gray “white” ones) he found a large welfare underclass (with all the economic and CULTURAL aspects one would expect) in places where rhere were no black or brown people.

    It is not new – for example as far back as the 1930s the Labour Party Boss of London (Herbert Morrison) said he would use public housing projects to “build the Tories out of London” by creating a class of dependents. It not quite turn out that way in London – but in other cities (especially Scottish ones) it did.

    As for American black people – the community was different (utterly different) as recently as the late 1940s.

    Families were strong.

    Unemployment was actually LOWER amoung young male blacks than among young male whites (and so on).

    So two explinations are possible.

    Either there has been a massive genetic mutation among black people – somethin has gone wrong with their “DNA”.

    Or…..

    What has happened has been cultural change – caused by DELIBERATE GOVERNMEN POLICY.

    Nothing to do with gentetics.

    But a mixture of “vote buying” scum Democrat party bosses (such as Mayor Wagner of New York – or Senate Boss and future President L.B. Johnson).

    And, (even worse) Marxioid upper class Democrats (and RINOs) with their dreams of a government planned society – such as Mrs Roosevelt..

    Between them the corrupt Democrat party bosses and the “educated” elite have turned blacks (and many whites) into corrupt dependents.

    “Why more blacks than whites – as a percentage”.

    Because blacks were specially TARGETED – by the “Great Society” programs (and by the Frankfurt School P.C.).

    For example – who did the Black Panthers hate most of all?

    More than white “captialists”? More even than “the Jews”?

    They hated most of all – BLACK SMALL BUSINESSMEN, people with a few employees trying to make a go of things in the poor areas of the cities.

    They were the chief targets of arson and murder.

    Why?

    Because the “Black Panthers” were really RED Panthers (just as Kevin Carson is).

  12. Julie near Chicago

    All of that is exactly right, Paul. Very well said–much better than I did.

  13. Julie near Chicago

    Actually, I think the Panthers were essentially street hoods, thugs…but they put on a swell show for the New Left to subsidize. Opportunists.

    Robert: The game the left is playing is, “Divide and conquer.” That’s most of what’s behind the pc-version of “multiculturalism” and it’s for sure fomenting race war. The “white solidarity movement” (or whatever you want to call it) only plays into their hands.

  14. Julie, I am curious as to why are you an advocate of the genocide of white people and (in the context of this country) the ethnocide of the indigenous British population.

    How can you live with yourself by supporting such an abhorrent viewpoint, which is what you are in effect doing by subscribing to and defending the multiculturalism and multi-racialism project?

    How can you ignore that the vast proportion of Blacks and Hispanics in America (90 odd percent) voted for Obama, and Pakistanis and Africans and such here overwhelmingly vote for the Labour party here? (I think that too is over 80%).

    Are they not voting in their own interests? Are they not, in some part, supporting Obama because he is seen as “one of them”, and for their own advancement?

    There was certainly much gloating about the “change” when Obama was elected as the “first Black president”, and even more glee when he was re-elected, with almost all the major news outlets discussing the “changing face of America” through demographics and what that means for the future.

    So in your view it is okay for people to see race, celebrate the “first Black president” and crow about the demographic replacement of whites, softly named “increased diversity”, but not okay to do or say anything which is in the interest of whites?

    Why do people such as yourself also ignore what happens when the demographic balance shifts, such as in Detroit, New Orleans, or even parts of London recently, where a major high-street bank has had to pull out of the area because it became too dangerous for its customers and their security vans (and not worth the hassle of them staying in the locality)?

    Why do people who call themselves Libertarian often seem to deny the legitimacy of true freedom of association and freedom of choice on how our surroundings develop?

    Don’t “racists” (ie, those who merely wish to preserve and protect their own ethnic and cultural heritage in their own homelands, and do not “hate” or “despise” anybody for their differing ethnicity) have the right to some self determination and a voice within society, politics and how a nation around them is shaped for the future?

    What if I do not want to be an ethnic minority in my own homeland? Is that really such a wicked, nasty, and disgusting opinion to have? Would you tell the Maori or the “American Indians” the same thing?

    What if I recognise that race, ethnicity, is a vital component of societal interaction and group dynamics, never mind a pivotal component of economic and national achievement, and do not wish to see it trashed and the future stability, safety and security of my nation put in jeopardy?

    Why are such people almost always kicked to the curb, denied a serious platform, smeared against, brushed aside as not even worth considering, people who are somehow “hateful” and “violent” and “uneducated”?

    Shouldn’t Libertarians of some stripe or other defend some of their interests or rights, rather than scurry off with a sense of distaste and distancing shame in their mouths?

    Who has engineered this situation, manufactured these globalist and anti-white viewpoints, who sets the agenda and the narrative for a society? Have you never asked yourself these questions?

    After all, this anti-white “melting pot” and ‘proposition nation’ project you champion is not something that can be undone, like some fiscal policy, or welfare policy, or some spate of an ideological zeal such as communism or socialism, where the inhabitants of the land mass can come to change their minds but still find themselves intact as ‘a people’.

    Why should the people who “do not care” about race, it’s pivotal role in a nation and the human condition, or even their own peoples genetic continuance, get to decide what happens for the people who DO care about these things?

    It is like being in a boat with seven other people who are rocking it over and being told that ‘you can sit still at the back if you want to, that is your right, nobody is forcing you to tip the boat over’!! Think about it.

    Where are we supposed to go to escape it? Where am I supposed to go to avoid such multiracial and multicultural policies and societies? I am already in my own homeland! I cannot go “Home”. I am home!

    Australia, America, Europe (France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Italy etc) and all of the occidental world is heading the same way.

    You suggest that society and civilisation has nothing to do with genetics, but this is obviously false when you look at what the trends are and what the history of the world is. I need not even get into the average IQ levels or different states of development or capabilities of forming successful nations and civilisations.

    Even on a micro-level, how does the California of the 1950’s and 60’s compare with the California today? Has the different demographic percentages had any impact on the look, feel, sound and nature of California or not?

    I would suggest it has, and that for the original white occupants of California, of the aforementioned era and today, it has not particularly been a good thing or in their long term interests as whites or as a society. The same is for Detroit, but more stark.

    It is a people who make a culture, not a culture that makes a people. To ignore this is to ignore reality itself. Change the people, and you will change the culture and change the very essence of the nation.

    The founding fathers of America new this perfectly well, and that is why America was founded as a White nation, where residency was restricted only to ‘free white men”.

    It never was a ‘proposition nation’ until the liberals (and the Jews) pushed to overturn the immigration quota restrictions and sold the Americans the pup of the idea that it is just “values” that matter.

    David Cameron here, similarly proposed a form of “Muscular Liberalism” whereby this nation was to be formed on a set of “universal” values of liberalism.

    This does not make a nation, it is the antithesis of a nation, because what makes a nation is its exclusivity to other peoples and other nations. Nor does it make the ensuing ethnocide and genocide of a people acceptable.

    Africa for the Africans, Japan for the Japanese, China for the Chinese, yet Whites have no longer any place they can call home or survive intact within. Their countries are ‘for everybody’ – and on current trends they are going to be washed away and mixed-out of existence in all of them.

    We ‘white’/Indigenous British people only have between 25 and 28 years left as a demographic majority, and a high proportion of them are sopping wet liberals, the apathetic, and self flagellators .

    However, some people are starting to resist this future, and like Robert says, if you do not start to organise and look after your own groups interests, be prepared to get elbowed aside and trampled over by those others who do.

  15. Derek Aspinall

    But what exciting times we live in!

  16. I see no reason why Julie should have to reply to a load of racialist bullshit (for example that Julie is in favour of the “genocide” of white people) put out on a supposedly libertarian site.

    Note to morons.

    States such as Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont (and many others I could name) are NOT known for large numbers of black and brown people.

    These States voted for BARACK OBAMA.

    Many other States in which there are large numbers of black and brown people voted for MITT ROMNEY.

    The problem in New England (and other areas) is not “race” it is IDEOLOGY. They do not have bad SKIN, they have bad PRINCIPLES.

    By the way California is actually dominated by a group of far left WHITE politicians.

    If California ever has a black or brown Governor this person should be judged on their merits (or lack of them) NOT ON THE COLOUR OF THEIR SKIN.

    As for the problems of Britain being caused by black or brown people………

    This is so absurd (when one considers how few of them there are in places like Glasgow – and how academic and political left is overwhelmingly WHITE) it is hard to believe that such a suggestion is meant seriously.

  17. By the way, before anyone makes the mistake, Islam is not a race – it is a set of ideas (principles, beliefs).

  18. “Julie near Chicago | 5 January, 2013 at 6:26 am |

    Well, I understand that that’s your position, Robert, but I’m not going to tell Allen West or Joe Hicks or Thomas Sowell that he can’t play with our group because he’s not “white.” I’m not going to exclude my Japanese friends on the grounds that they’re not “American” in some sense–despite that they were born in America, of American parents. Or that they’re not of European ancestry (“ethnicity”). ”

    If read my piece carefully you will see that is not what I am advocating. My position is that further mass immigration of the unassimilatable should be halted, illegals deported, “positive” discrimination ended and the native white culture be protected.

  19. Julie near Chicago

    Concerned Briton: Your revolting, though I fear sincere, comment perfectly illustrates what Richard A. Epstein has called “an intellectual mess.”

    If you can’t distinguish between race or “ethnicity” and the complex of customs and values that together we call “culture,” then there’s no way I can see that we can have a worthwhile discussion.

    It is true that if you pluck an adolescent or an adult suddenly out of his native tribe and culture and plunk him down somewhere utterly alien to all that he knows, he may not assimilate very well. But even that is not a for-sure…and if no one is around stirring the pot of Identity Politics, in a few generations you won’t know where the progeny’s ancestors came from, save by a few holdover social and religious traditions and, perhaps, physical characteristics. By the way, have you seen photos of Eric Holder (the head of our Dept. of “Justice”)? I guess he has one Negroid DNA strand in there somewhere…to me he looks a lot like the worst example of the stereotypical used-car salesman (white!). He could easily “pass,” if he decided to play spokesman for the victimized White Man instead of the Victimized Black. And you, going by your avowed criterion above, would happily welcome him into your White Home.

    Stupid, stupid, stupid!

    I will say this: It is far better to live among persons with strands of Negroid, Mongoloid, and whatever-else DNA in their genes, but who understand, believe in, and LIVE the principle of **live-and-let-live** which is the vernacular shorthand expression of the principles of libertarianism–

    Than it is to live among the so-called “white” persons of apparently-“pure” European ethnicity (not even race–as the “white race” is Caucasoid, as are the brown East Indians and the Semitic peoples, Arabs and Jews alike) who would turn you into a worker-ant in the Ant Farm, in a heartbeat. The Tranzi Left and the American so-called “liberals” are mostly WHITE, mostly of chiefly EUROPEAN ancestry–even the Jewish ones, if you must drag that musty old libel into the discussion.

    I can understand how good people can feel frustrated when it seems as though certain easily-identifiable racial or ethnic groups seem to be getting all the goodies and crowding out themselves and the easily-identifiable racial or ethnic group with which they associate their very identity.

    But for them to call themselves “libertarian” is to contradict the very meaning of the term, which among other things disparages all forms of collectivism and judges each person on his own individual beliefs and actions as a PERSON, not as a cypher in some non-philosophically-based group.

    It is also to give in to either stupidity, profound confusion, or mental laziness of the first order.

    As for Paul’s initial statement: Thank you, sir. You are one of the Good Guys, and I appreciate your comments very much.

  20. Julie – the left (of course) make the same mistake.

    For example, “Islam” and “Muslims” are sometimes treated as an ethnic group – or even a race.

    It is neither.

    Islam is, of course, a set of ideas (principles – religious beliefs).

    A Muslim can be of any “race”. And someone who sincerely REJECTS Islam is no longer a Muslim.

    And there are many different ethnic groups whose main religion is Islam.

  21. Julie- race cannot be discounted. There is a trait called assortative selection which is widespread in the animal kingdom where it determines mating and , in social animals, who is to be in the group.

    Organisms mate and social animals congregate according to various criteria. In humans the criteria covers factors such as height, IQ, social class and cultural background. Most potently it covers racial type, especially when it comes to mating. In fact, if it did not the physical differences we call races would not exist. If sex will not dissolve the barriers between people to the point where no distinction is made then nothing will. Yet is does not happen even in places such as New York and London where there is every opportunity for inter-racial breeding, for the numbers of inter-racial partnerships remains very small compared with the opportunities provided.

  22. Robert.

    I really do not believe that Julie’s comments can be reasonably be interpreted as asking you to go and marry a black lady (although if you wish to do so I do not see why you should not).

    However, you are applying the idea of race to POLITICS.

    Thus making the same moral error as the leftists you oppose.

    I AGREE with you that “positive discrimination” is wrong – and that “multi culturalism” (not the same thing) is also wrong.

    However, getting into bed with the “White power” people is ALSO WRONG.

    “I am not getting into bed with them”.

    I have not noticied you denouncing people like “Concerned Briton”.

    Involving race in politics is a vile thing to do – (whatever racial group is favoured), it is disgusting. It can lead to nothing but harm.

    I am astonished that an intelligent and well meaning man, such as yourself, can not see this.

  23. Paul Marks –
    “I really do not believe that Julie’s comments can be reasonably be interpreted as asking you to go and marry a black lady (although if you wish to do so I do not see why you should not).”

    I never imagined she had meant that. The point I was making is that humans consider racial difference a profound dividing criterion. RH

    “However, you are applying the idea of race to POLITICS”

    I am not applying the idea of race to politics. Rather I am simply reporting the reality.

    I am all too well aware of the dangers of ethnic/racial politics, but whites in the West are forced into it by the traitorous behabviour of our political elites who have permitted mass immigration of the unassimilatable into our societies..

  24. By the way, in case I am accused of being motivated by fear, I oppose (and have always opposed) the Race Relations Acts (1965, 1968 and 1976) and the Equality Act (2006).

    The things that (for example) “Concerned Briton” says, disgust me – but I defend his right to say them (and openly – under his own name).

    I also defend the right of private business enterprises to be utterly stupid and absurd – by not employing people, or turning away paying customers, on the basis of the colour of their skin.

  25. Robert – who is “unassimiatable” depends on BELIEFS (principles) not skin colour.

    There have been blond, and blue eyed, suicide bombers.

    A lady from Belgium springs to mind.
    ——————————————————————————————————

    The Marxists (in Europe and North America often “nordic” is “race”) also totally reject our society.

    They reject “assimilation”.

    And being born here (and being able to trace their line back for centuries) makes no difference.

    Remember Kim Philby and co.

    They were “white”, they dressed well, they went to the best schools and universities……

    And they were so alien to the basic principles of our society – that they might as well have been “Klingons” from “Star Trek”.

    I say again……

    It is BELIEFS (principles) that matter.

    Not skin colour.

  26. Steven2011@lavabit.com

    Mr Marks, our so-called ‘leaders’ brought race into British politics we ordinary Britons didn’t. They were warned they were making a fatal mistake in so doing and that no good would come of their juvenile policies but as ever they ignored commonsense and so here we are.

  27. I see that neither Paul Marks or Julie can actually answer any of the points I made.

    In fact, Paul Marks preferred to try and shut down the debate instead (“I see no reason why Julie should have to reply”), ironically implied that there should be ‘no place’ for such views as mine on what is a Libertarian site. Then, instead of thinking about the contents of what I said, he crudely reaches for the name-calling sticks and obfuscations of what was actually being said.

    (I am glad that you have since decided that I should be afforded the right to have a say).

    But going to back to the earlier response: What exactly is the “bullshit” Paul? Can you, or Julie for that matter, refute what I said – instead of just calling people ‘morons’ or their position ‘revolting’?

    Your obfuscation is apparent, for example, when you cite that Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are not known for their large numbers of ‘black and brown’ people. You are not a stupid person, so you must know very well that was not my point. So why try and twist it around, if not for the purposes of being deliberately misleading?

    Of course, the point was NOT whether white liberals voted for Obama, the point was that around 80% of ‘black and brown’ people voted for Obama. (That is the mean percentage of the non-white demographic, cited in Roberts article).

    So no, “large numbers” of ‘black and brown’ people did NOT vote for Mitt Romney, they overwhelmingly and almost exclusively voted for the non-white candidate. This was especially so with Blacks, of which a whopping 93% voted for the ‘black’ candidate.

    Were they all suddenly rampant socialists, or could it be said that many of them were voting for ‘racial solidarity’ and a sign of racial ‘change’ in America, and because they believed that Barack Obama would look out for ‘them’ and ‘theirs’ much more than the ‘stuffy old white guys’ of the past?

    Come on now, do not be coy or purposefully blind to this. If 93% of whites had voted for Romney (in favour of Barack Obama) there would have been a major outcry about “racism”. Obviously this has not been labelled so when the situations are reversed. Why you seek to hide from this observation, which is based upon factual and official election counts, is a mystery.

    Nor did I EVER say that somebody else has “bad skin”. I would prefer it if you did not project your own ignorances of my positions (and your own ignorances of what defines a race) in order to put words or thoughts into my mouth, or to project me in a particular light which is not factual. (Nor am I of the “White Power Brigade” – whatever that is supposed to be).

    More obfuscation appears when you say that California is dominated by white ‘left wing’ politicians. Well so what if it is? What has that got to do with the point I was making?

    The point was that a massive demographic transformation has occurred (one that is rendering the original white population and society of the 1950’s and 1960’s ever marginalised) – that it will have changed society, changed the culture, changed the composition and the nature of California. The other example I cited was Detroit, only instead of Mexicans it is primarily Blacks.

    Are you seriously suggesting that the changes have not had any impact or made any difference whatsoever?

    Is the ‘long term’ situation going on in such places in the INTERESTS of the Caucasian race? Is that group better off for it? Have they got a long term future there? Has it been only ‘beneficial’?

    My answer to that is of course NO. I do not know how you can possibly argue that it has been.

    Who said that the ‘causation’ of Britain’s problems are ‘Black and brown’ people? Not me. So where did you get that smear from? Why are you projecting such things on to me?

    There are many problems in Britain that can be attributed to third world people and their progeny. They are too numerous to list, but I could list them if you insisted upon it. However they themselves are not to blame, but are rather a symptom of an insidious ideology. That is where the real causation lay. It is the purposeful and ideological transformation of this country which is the main problem.

    Julie, I can perfectly well distinguish between what an ethnicity is and what a race is. Maybe it is you who is confused, or maybe it is just that I stick to the historic meaning of the terms ethnicity and nation, whilst you believe them to be wholly ‘civic’ in nature. For example, a Pakistani living in England is not English. He does not have English ethnicity. To afford him the right to call himself English is to deny the true English people their right to an identity of their own. Why would you want to do that?

    He may be a British Citizen under the terms of residency (and quite rightly afforded the same rights under the law as everybody else), but he is not ethnically British. He is a Pakistani living on the British landmass. The same is true of their offspring who are born on this soil. They are still of Pakistani heritage and not of the English or Caucasian stock.

    Nobody in their right mind would look at a Bantu in Hong Kong and suggest that he is of Chinese ethnicity. Please do not deny the historic British people (ie the English, the Scottish, the Welsh) their identity by suggesting otherwise. To deny a historic people an identity is one of the aspects of what constitutes the road to genocide.

    Germany has an ethnicity, as does Denmark, Sweden, and other indigenous people to their homelands. Yet of course they are all linked to the same racial group, Europeans, or Caucasians if you prefer. As are the British people.

    As such, I am quite aware of how ethnicity and race differentiate. That you seem to confuse ethnicity with citizenship, is not really my fault. ‘American’ is not an ethnicity.

    I do not even begin to understand why you are of the opinion that I would not allow a non-white person into my home. Is this another projection and slander upon me, my positions and my character? Of course I have little option but to take it as being so. You seem to be of the opinion that I somehow ‘hate’ or ‘despise’ other races and would not entertain allowing somebody into my house who did not share my racial grouping, as though I would swab my hands with disinfectant if ever I had to shake hands with somebody who differed from me. Where does this strange viewpoint come from? Who manufactured such things and put such stereotypes in your mind?

    I made myself perfectly clear as to what my objections were to the processes going on, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘race-hate’ or a sense of racial superiority over others, or any of the usual things that people like to ascribe to those who defend white interests and the preservation and continuance of my people – in the face of a rather wicked and genocidal ideological position which sets a course for our destruction.

    And that is what I called you up on Julie, your support for such a situation.

    It does not take a genius to work out that if you flood historically white nations with a whole swathe of non-white citizens, promote miscegenation in the media, socially engineer the societies and leave them to ‘boil’ on the ‘melting pot’ for a ‘hundred years or more’, you would be turning out ‘coffee coloured people by the score’. (To cite the infamous Blue Mink song).

    Tell me how that does not constitute the eradication of races, specifically the white race, which is genetically recessive (as two non-whites or one white and one non white can not ever produce a wholly white child).

    That is why I put it to you that you are advocating ‘racial nihilism’ and supporting the ethnocide of people in various nation states, which in turn ultimately leads to the eradication of the white racial grouping from the planet.

    Caucasians only make up 8% of the planet’s demographic, and only 2% of that 8% are white females who are able to give birth. That is the fact of the matter. It is going to be impossible to survive in the conditions being imposed upon our nations.

    Whether you chose to care a jot is of course up to you, but I care about it along with many others. I think it is important, and an important part of being human, and I think those who would advocate such a wrecking of human biodiversity – (albeit for so called ‘live and let live’ reasons) – are just as morally questionable as you find me to be. You are the ones on a destructive course of action which can never be reversed, not me.

    I also tend to believe that Libertarianism works the best in near-homogeneous nations, especially nations which are white. As I understand things, no other racial grouping has come up with the concepts which we aspire to in the West, and to my knowledge, Caucasians are the primary ones to have sought to implement it.

    For example, I think you are all going to have an extremely hard time, especially here in Britain, getting the various other races and cultures to subscribe and adhere to Libertarianism at the abandonment of their own group interests. How many Somalian libertarians live in Britain, for example, and how many others are likely to be prepared to take it up when put into comparison to the historically European/Occidental demographic?

    My belief is that when we “go” – libertarianism will largely, but perhaps not completely, go with us.

    Genocide is a strong word to use, it may have shocked you, but genocide does not solely mean the sudden armed and violent culling of a racial or ethnic group. The definition of genocide includes many factors, one of which is to bring about a series of policies and situations which can ultimately lead to the eradication of a group over a period of time.

    Let me tell you that in 1951, Britain was 99.8% ‘White British’. Let me also tell you that just 80 years later the indigenous British population will be the minority on the island, and that by natural progression, under these current conditions, they will be virtually gone not long after the dawn of the next century.

    If that does not constitute the definition of ethnocide, I do not really know what does. When this same situation is happening in Germany, France, Australia, America, it is obvious to anybody with half a braincell what the ultimate result will be. Israel has certainly recognised what the problem would be for them, but then again they are quite smart and ethnocentric.

    As for my mentioning of the Jews, it is perhaps only problematic for the over-sensitive if one is to mention that their grouping is disproportionately involved in progressing this mischief. I cited the Jews (in brackets, as I do NOT exclude or excuse white participation) because it is a matter of FACT that Jewish people were involved in pressing for the American immigration quotas (restrictions) to be changed, just like they were in Australia. Do not blame me for stating a fact.

    To just abuse my earlier posts and my positions as being “stupidity”, some sort of “confusion” or “mental laziness” is extremely lazy in itself. Especially when none of my actual points were counteracted.

    So, to repeat some of my unanswered points: Are you happy for the slow eradication of white people? If so, how does that make you a good person? Would you celebrate the slow eradication of Africans on the African continent and worldwide?

    Would you have told the Maori and the American Indians that they have no legitimacy as a people or a right to self defence and determination? Is it wrong of me to be deeply concerned about what is taking place to the disadvantage of my people? Were they also nasty and despicable people with no reason to be alarmed or in opposition?

    Are you seriously denying that race and ethnicity are vital components of societal interaction and group dynamics, never mind a pivotal component of economic and national achievement?

    Are you seriously denying that there are no differences, on average, between races and their capabilities of building successful civilisations (as seen through Western eyes) and that bringing a different demographic into a landmass will not affect its national standing in the future? How to you substantiate these claims?

    The New Scientist magazine, only in September last year, subtly discussed this kind of topic when it was pondering on the future of America in 2050.

    To quote the article, it said of racial demographics that “analyses of US Census Bureau data reveal large and stubbornly persistent disparities in wealth and educational achievement. If these are not narrowed, predicted population change could undermine the US’s future prosperity”, and that there was “a persistent racial and ethnic economic inequality which may lead to new cultural and economic fragmentation”

    It further followed that since “Older immigrants with no higher education drag down the overall statistics on Hispanic educational attainment” and could thus skew the figures, the researchers “compared US-born Hispanics with other groups, looking at the percentage of people in their late 20s with a college degree” instead.

    They found that “Since the mid-1990s, there has been no narrowing of the gap between whites and Hispanics”. It continued how (if their studies were right) it would be “bad news for the nation as a whole”.

    Seeing as there have been programmes to “close the gap” in attainment between differing racial groups in America for over 50 years now, with ZERO results, I think it is relatively safe to surmise that now things are at such a stage demographically, the gap will never be closed – and that much of the inability to close the gap is likely to be down to a natural ‘average’ difference between peoples.

    The Jewish people are (on average) cleverer than all the rest of humanity, the Asian (Oriental) people are (on average) slightly higher than the Caucasians, and the list tends to trickle down to sub Saharan Africans, which in Africa have an average IQ of around 75, although this is raised slightly through environmental factors when in the West.

    You will have to forgive me when I try to look at the facts of the matter, instead of relying on emotion or fallacies – i.e. things which people would desperately wish to be true, but in fact aren’t.

    Given that we already have Islamic problems emerging here, demographic problems, the issue of the race-replacement of Caucasians from Britain plus historical examples of what takes place in these kinds of situations, surely it is more sensible to be cautious and oppositional to what is likely to occur, than to bring it on assuming it will be “different this time”. That is a kind of white-Western chauvinism and superiority complex in itself.

    Situations could develop into increased strife, then increased conflict and even warfare. Hopefully not. But at the least we could see the standing of this country drop to that of second or third world status if trends continue, so why should I wish to see the future stability, safety and security of my nation put in jeopardy by NOT saying “Wait a minute!”?

    For somebody who is supposedly a ‘moron’ and “mentally lazy”, I seem to have thought about, researched and investigated this issue more thoroughly than either of you. You both seem to believe you are open-minded yet you do not seem able to break of a mental straight jacket.

  28. Julie near Chicago

    Concerned, you wrote:

    “Julie, I can perfectly well distinguish between what an ethnicity is and what a race is.”

    Good for you. Can you read? Because your quoted remark indicates you didn’t get what I wrote, which is, “If you can’t distinguish between race or ‘ethnicity’ and the complex of customs and values that together we call ‘culture,’…”

    Let us parse this. It has the form, “If you can’t distinguish between A and B…,” where

    A = “race or ‘ethnicity'” …. and
    B = “culture.”

    For example, my college roommate was 100% Japanese; her parents, immigrants from Japan, were naturalized American citizens (and I’m sorry to say, spent time in the camps in WW II), but she was culturally and philosophically 100% American. Different race and ethnicity, but same culture…and we were best friends.

    As a matter of fact, I suppose I wouldn’t be welcome in your Britain, as I am ethnically 1/4-Spanish so not sufficiently pure British to meet your criteria. Or at least, my grandmother (related to Lord Mayor of London, by the way) would have been OK by you, but not my Spanish granddad.

    Speaking of societies for the moment, and NOT of their political dimension at all, you must choose whether you prefer to be a part of a society where everyone is of “British” ethnicity (how many generations of strictly-British-born ancestors must one have to meet that criterion?) AND of strictly “white”-Caucasoid ancestry — that is, everyone is of your preferred race and ethnicity —

    OR —

    do you prefer to be part of a society where everyone shares your fundamental values, which includes genuine respect for the humanness of all the others (that’s the most important thing) as well as mostly observing the same customs and traditions, and knowing and honoring the history and underlying philosophy of the society–that is, its CULTURE?

    Britain has had its Bad Guys, for instance its Kim Philbys, going back through the ages…people who were born into the society and of old lineage within it, but were not actually OF it because they neither understood nor honored its history and the philosophy binding it. But Philby and his pop would by your criteria of Race and Ethnicity be perfectly welcome. But, you see, not by mine.

    So that is the first issue: which is more important to you, shared race and ethnic inheritance, or shared culture–the most important part of which is the shared beliefs about right and wrong, about what we expect of each other and of ourselves, and a reasonably common outlook or worldview?

    Robert,

    I don’t know where I said anything about your “home.” I don’t recall using the word at all.

  29. Julie near Chicago

    But the second issue, and the one I was trying to address in the first place before we got sidetracked into this other business, is what is smart and what is dumb as a political tactic.

    And associating “whiteness” or “Britishness” or “Americanness” or, gawd-help-us, free markets and libertarianism or even conservatism with WHITE RACISM in the minds of the public is so self-defeating as a tactic, I can’t tell you.

    Mind you, people like me (and Paul) do NOT believe in “positive discrimination,” by which I think you mean what Americans know as Affirmative Action, which boils down to racial quotas. The very idea is disgusting. Every man and woman has the right to to refuse to associate as either seller or buyer, employer or employee, with whomever he pleases, for whatever reason. The only exception to that is where the government is providing a taxpayer-supported service. In that case, no one should be discriminated against–neither as user of the service nor as its employee (the latter, assuming the applicant is up to the job).

    I too deplore the encouragement of mass immigration of people whose culture is very different from yours or ours. Yet it has happened, and here we all are. The first thing we have to do about that is get it STOPPED. Paul is right: No more welfare, no more freebies. No more keeping known terrorists for years on end in luxurious mansions in Mayfair (or wherever it was) on the public fisc yet. But the other thing is, to go to a system where a hopeful immigrant MUST be self-supporting and MUST be sponsored by a British citizen who accepts full legal responsibility for the sponsored.

    Both of those are long, uphill political battles. In the first place, I doubt you could gather a large enough group of white, ethnic Brits to have sufficient clout to do the job, not unless you have a bunch of closet racists around with the money and power of George Soros or somebody. And in the second place, you can’t get even all the white Brits to come together as a political force if you appeal to the spirit of racial-ethnic solidarity–because few people want to be tarred with the brush of RRRRACISSSST!, which is exactly what’s going to happen to your brave little band.

    NOW. ***That’s the issue that started this whole conversation.*** I’ve given my all, in terms of addressing what I think is important, so I’ll stop here instead of getting sidetracked all over again.

  30. My apologies – it was the 2010 (not 2006) Equality Act, I apologise for my error.

    “Concerned Britton” – I am not in the habit of carefully answering the questions of Black Shirts. Go jump in the nearest lake.

    Steven 20011 – quite correct. However, two wrongs do not make a right. Yes the political elite brough both race and ethnic stuff into politics – all the MORE reaon not to make the same moral error as them (and making the same moral error in reverse – is still making the same moral error).

    Julie – you are wasting your time (of course so I am – but you may have more useful things to do with your time).

    Free market people spend a lot of time and energy denying charges that we are racists or that we are using “dog whistles” to bring ethnic stuff into politics.

    For anyone who actually knowns the history of the Democrats in the United States (with their endless tricks – both racial and ethnic) and the Labour party in Britain (with their shamless seeking of the “Celtic” vote and then playing racial games from the 1960s onwards) the charge that it is Conservatives and Libertarians who bring race and ethnic stuff into politics is ABSURD.

    However, the charges (and not just from the media, these lies are also taught to children in the schools and to students in the Universities – Republcians and Conservatives “boo-hiss – they are racists”).

    We do the best we can to fight these charges – these LIES.

    And then along comes Robert (let alone “Concerned Nazi”) to GIVE AMMUNITION TO THE LEFT. To make their lies (that conservatives and libertarians are “closet racists”) seem true.

    It is very much like another thread on this site. Which, under the guise of wanting to leave the E.U., has become “why it is impossible to leave the E.U. because…..” (because of a lot of waffle and nonsense).

    As I have said in the past – this site is perhaps not what it pretends to be. “Alliance” it may be (especially if one thinks of the television series “Firefly” – yes I suspect this is an “Alliance” place, although not openly so, and not everyone here, after all many “False Flag” had SINCERE people involved), but libertarian? Not really – at least if it is a libertarian site some here concentrate on giving ammunition to the enemies of liberty, which is an odd thing for a libertarian site to do.

  31. Paul Marks – If race was not important it would not be an issue. The future we are heading for at present is this:

    Twenty twenty-one
    And the pogroms come
    Because no public one
    Would heed the thrum
    Of Nature’s drum
    Saying ever on
    Before each one
    The tribe must come.

  32. Julie, it seems that I did make a mistake on what you had meant, but what you wrote is perhaps slightly open to misinterpretation. I do acknowledge that I was the one who jumped the gun, you are right, but you said that:

    “If you can’t distinguish between race *or* “ethnicity” and the complex of customs and values that together we call “culture,” then there’s no way I can see that we can have a worthwhile discussion”.

    I mistakenly took it that there was a three-component rebuff and not just the two. Ie, that I could not distinguish between race OR ethnicity, OR their differentiation from culture.

    Many people I come across do make the mistake of confusing ethnicity and race, so understandably, I would have taken that as being the primary focus of the confusion you were attributing to me – not least because accusing me of not being differentiate between race and culture is a pretty preposterous thing to have said, given my area of interest and concern!

    I entirely agree about the need for a meritocracy, and support that. I have never liked ‘affirmative action’ or the idea that each and every sector of employed life has to be “representative”.

    I do not know where the United States generally stands with that matter, but here in Britain there have been noises before (especially under the Labour government) which seemed to want an ideal where, for example, the fire service should be staffed 50% by men, 50% by women, and no doubt they would then also desire that if the area the station is situated in had a 25% demographic of “minorities”, then 25% of that service should also be “minorities”.

    This is their trapping of endlessly enforcing that kind of “equality”. Equality in those kinds of terms is a nonsense to me. Naturally, it should not really matter who the person is that is saving a life or pulling somebody out of a car.

    Some people (read: Lefties) believe that only ethnic minorities are able to look out for other ethnic minorities, or that everything has to be so ‘balanced’ to “reflect the demographic” and to “balance the roles of men and women” etc.

    Personally, I would not particularly wish for something like the fire service to be staffed by so many women, as they are generally weaker than men.

    That kind of position (like my earlier positions are based on fact) would no doubt annoy many feminists in this country, much in the way that my facts about racial dynamics annoys and upsets people who do not want them to be true.

    I am not saying they are incapable as fire fighters, just that a man may be able to rescue two children simultaneously than a woman who may only be able to carry one at once. For much of the other day to day duties, there would tend to be little problem.

    This is perhaps just the same as how I say racial dynamics are important, that they are “in effect” whether people here like it or not (hence Robert’s article, which nobody has actually refuted) – and that I think it should not be such a heresy to point it out.

    That is what is also playing into the hands of the ‘left’ – always operating on their platform and allowing them to dictate the parameters and rules of the game. I do not care if I am called ‘racist’ or ‘Nazi’ or whatever usual names. That is often the last resort of people who are losing.

    The truth is the truth. In a fictional example, if Black people are, say, 15 times more likely to carry knives than Whites, then I see no reason at all why that should not be said. I get sick of people hiding away and not dealing with realities as they are. It helps nobody.

    For example, nobody here (like in many other places) has actually answered the questions I put to them. I can only conclude from that, that they cannot ‘comfortably’ be answered without having to concede there may be a point and some legitimacy for being concerned, or that they just cannot answer them. What I tend to receive back is just their own wishes and desires. That is fine, but it is not the same thing.

    Nobody has really dissected or de-constructed Robert’s article either, other than just talking about how it should not be gone into, not really given time to, not suitable for this site, that is should not be used as a strategy, and whatever else. Paul’s replies to this article are particularly weak, especially given the depth and the time that Robert went to in looking into this aspect of life for his article.

    I think that Robert pointed out that racial dynamics do shape a society and that whilst some people may wish for it all to go away, it cannot entirely be escaped from.

    He (quite rightly in my view) hinted near the end of the article that if ‘whites’ do not start think about the possibility of looking after their own self interests (especially when we are the main ones being “pathologically altruistic” and debasing of ourselves – and when we are the main ones losing ground and losing our nations to the point we cannot survive), we are going to ‘do away with ourselves’ both physically and influentially.

    As I say, I cannot particularly imagine a great Libertarian uprising by Pakistanis, Somalis, Turks, Nigerians, Chinese, Afghanis, and all the other disparate people’s who are currently going to be rendering the British people a minority group in their own country. I may well be mistaken, but at the moment, I just cannot see that ever happening.

    When it comes to the current situation, I think things are getting much “too far gone” to ever hope to assimilate them all (slowly, over millennia, as has previously occurred with the fractions of percentages of others who were here) to the degree they are indistinguishable and likely to sing from the same hymn sheets (and generally evolve into good little libertarian minded souls).

    The indigenous demographic are going to be made minorities, and as I tried to point out earlier, I think it is perfectly valid to oppose this developing situation and all the problems it will bring – and is already bringing.

    (As I say, the list of existing problems is already quite long).

    I think that people discussing ‘welfare’ and ‘taxes’ and getting rid of ‘affirmative action’ programs, ensuring freedom of employment and freedom of association, pulling out of supranational bodies and the European Union and such things mean well, but that they are the very least we ought to be doing. Especially at this late hour.

    I think I will end this reply by reasserting, again, that I do not “discriminate” upon individual people or believe I am “superior” to any other racial group, that I do not “hate” or “blame” all my frustrations on “scapegoats” and all the other usual misconceptions people like to attribute to people such as myself.

    It is the “bigger picture” that is my concern, ie, what is taking place as a whole – and believe me, my blame lay primarily on the establishment, the ideologues and intellectuals behind the current sociocultural hegemony which prevails, the excessive globalism and the forces of vested interests – ranging from ‘Cultural Marxists’, the purveyors of the “critical theory”, to “corporate Fascists” who have used (and funded) the left-wing agenda to monopolise and feather their own nests and agendas.

    I have just got past the point of being dictated to (and being put into a mental straitjacket manufactured by) the ‘opposition’.

    This is why I often robustly state my case, stand my ground, and have taken on the opinions of what is sometimes termed the “New Right”.

    We are in the habit of unapologetically asserting a future for ourselves, because we know that nobody else is going to do that for us.

    Despite that Paul would no doubt object to me saying this, I have always had libertarian leanings, and still do so. That is why I am here.

    It is just that I *also* recognise other things which are in the picture. Nothing is ever clear-cut and neatly compartmented.

    For example, I care about matters such as parents not being able to film or take pictures of their own children playing in the park (or film nativity plays) without them being questioned by other parents or harassed by the police (in fear of them being paedophiles).

    I care about matters such as securing freedom of the internet, securing freedom from a surveillance state, being able to smoke in your own car if you are not harming anybody else (and I am not a smoker), and generally not being ‘nannied’ by the state on every aspect of how you may live your life…..etc. As you know, the list gets endless.

    I also happen to care about my people, my kith and kin, my nation, both of their futures, and think that is a travesty – an unnecessary travesty – that the current course has been set when it could still potentially be avoided.

    Yes, I admit I am bitter about it – and often towards those who have brought it on and continue to bring it on.

    I oppose that travesty, and think I have every right to oppose it, despite the silly name calling I tend to receive by doing so.

    When it comes to libertarianism, as I think Libertarianism has more chance of success in an already relatively mono-cultural and homogeneous society (where there are fewer in-group and out-group dynamics at play than in a multiracial and multicultural society) and that I believe the Europeans are more naturally inclined towards libertarianism as a trait – I therefore also believe that we have a duty to be wary of what can damage that and damage the future stability and essence of a nation.

    For some here to paint me as some kind of “dumb” “white power brigade supremacist” (who no doubt wants to kill millions of ‘inferior’ people worldwide for their “bad skin”, etc and “sieg Heil” up and down the pavement with my finger under my nose) I find to be just plainly ridiculous – and perhaps more a highlight of some peoples own ignorances and prejudices than those they perceive as being mine.