Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Going To The Dogs

Ross Parker (no relation) hears Peter Hitchens in prophetic mood.

Hitchens spread the Sunday Mail gospel of fear: if there is no real alternative to Blair the country will go to the dogs (again, presumably); if there are no good right-wingers, the BNP will take over; and if the BNP are going to take over, the other parties will turn us into a police state sooner than letting it happen.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

In a BNP Britain, at least, you'll have the right to call a policeman's horse 'gay'.

And why is Mr. Hitchens egging on a civil war? Seems a bit irresponsible if you ask me.

Anonymous said...

I don't know I have visions of Nick Griffin being just like Blair if he ever took office.............I think their is magic dust impregnated in the wallpaper at No.10 and they all turn out to be crooked prats

I have no doubt a BNP Govt would have the country over-run with asylum-seekers within weeks and have the BBC tell us it isn't happening

Anonymous said...

I should write there when I change my sentence

Anonymous said...

How Well Is The BNP Doing?
Sky News Weblog with Adam Boulton

http://adamboulton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/11/how_well_is_the.html

The comments are worth a read, plenty of support it seems.

Anonymous said...

Sorry you will need to scroll down

Guessedworker said...

Hitchens is right in a general sense, but he overlooks the "carrier" of our modern political disease - which is the continuing, inevitable decay of liberalism.

By liberalism, of course, I mean our entire political framework. Leviathan, and not the free and unfettered individual will, is the natural consequence of this decay (which has its roots in 19th and early 20th century reform). That recent and very far-reaching Acts of Parliament such as the Civil Contingencies Act, to name but one, lay the groundwork for an informal elective dictatorship is not open to dispute. The road ahead is open and it will be travelled.

Where Hitchens is amiss, then, is in supposing that a seriously electable BNP will alone be the trigger. The BNP may ride a white-crested wave of anger at government and at the fate of England. But that is all incidental and subsidiary to the established historic trajectory of Western political development.

Doubters think back to the political zeitgeist operating in the pre-war years, and trace the philosophical line through today and onward for another two decades. Then consider whether in such extremis, should the white wave prove too strong, the BNP will remain as we see it today or it will have to transmogrify into something much more strident.

Anonymous said...

Despite the fact I found his book 'Abolition of Britain' awful to read, I've started to develop a growing sense of respect for Peter Hitchens recently.

Yet, the public won't go rushing to the right. Iain Dale explains it very well when discussing the ideological positioning of the Tory Party:
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-tories-need-to-find-common-ground.html

Voyager said...

Islam in Europe

Guessedworker said...

sam,

You completely miss the point, which is that the centre, to re-quote Yeats, will not hold. The enduring purpose of the elite is to make its possession of power and/or wealth stable. Those seventeen words hold everything, including the destruction of nation which dedication to that purpose makes necessary, and the slow, ineluctably rising outrage of the people they would abolish.

I know you are young and in that mould of non-controversial tree creature who eats the lowest leaves (in Oz I believe they call him Dendrolagus goodfellowi). But Truth is to be had if you will reach a little higher up.

Anonymous said...

^ You can continue your crusade against the conspirating 'elite' if you wish. I'm happy being a "young" and "low" political observer who would far rather stick to facts and constructed arguments than wild-haired theories.

And don't use my young age as an excuse for anything because I don't. My personal excuse for not going along with your opinion is that I'm perhaps less prone to hysterics.

Dave said...

Chasing the centre is nuts, as the Tories move to the 'centre' the Labour party is able to move further left without looking too extreme (to those who don't follow politics) then creating a new centre between the parties.
Camerons move to the centre is in reality therefore a constant rebalancing of the political centre leftwards.
He is destroying the Conservative party and the country.

Guessedworker said...

Your age, Sam, is what it is. Knowledge and judgement are not given to the young.

I am not a conspiracy-monger. Rather, the breaking of the nations of the West is a product of the interests of a very large body of people whom one has grown accustomed to describing as the elite, though they are not unified in that sense and I doubt if that many see themselves in that way. However, there is a congruence to their interests which, whilst recognised, requires no stating.

Dave is correct about the leftward migration of the "centre". It is already Marxist by any cultural definition of that word. We have now reached the era of publicly acknowledged "transgender rights". This concept was cutting edge Marxist analysis about three years ago. Now it's mainstream politics ... utterly absurd, of course, but the political world is completely detached from real life.

All that's left for the liberal freedom-machine is peadophiles and furry animals, so I think the process has reached its ideological limit.

Since liberalism delivers social pathology for freedom, a static centre is inherently unstable - which brings me back to the issue of decay and new forms of power.

Of course, you guys can always worry about Cameron being too like Blair.

Anonymous said...

You're right: knowledge and judgement aren't given to the young. But then, it's not always given to adults, is it?

Knowledge and judgement are gained throughout life. Just because my judgement differs from your judgement does not mean mine is wrong.

However, I agree that there has been a "leftward migration" of the centre, at least in perception. Yet, what the perception of the 'centre' is by political connousiers like ourselves may differ from the perception by the public at large.

Elections are one from the centre ground. A simple observation of history tells you that. Look at Benjamin Disraeli. He didn't come to power howling from a moral wilderness. He rejected the moral lecturing of the Liberals, and promised instead material growth. The result? Electoral victory.

What David Cameron is doing now is forcing Labour to be on the defensive. In the past, the boundries of political positioning have been set by the Tories. In recent years, the centrist policies of Labour have forced the Conservative Party further right and further alienated from the majority of the public.

If you want to be elected by the people, you have to speak about issues people really care about and have policies that are realistic. To assume that the public will suddenly swing to the hard right is to be detatched from reality.

Guessedworker said...

Sam,

Elections don't deliver change to the zeitgeist. We will go to perdition regardless of how people vote.

To change the zeigeist one must philosophise from the right. The leftward migration of the centre is entirely ideological achievement. No one was asked to vote for transgender rights ... or, indeed, Third World race replacement.

At MR, in addition to general knock-about stuff from a radical right perspective, we are also trying to analyse and philosophise in the cause of change to serve our ethnic interests.

I happen to think that is important. Much more important, in fact, than "Dave" new green credentials or his support among women voters. But I am interested in the survival of my people. Cameron is simply interested in liberalism.

Dizzy, btw, was a thief of Conservative history. A brilliant populist, though.

Dave said...

Sam first you say you agree there has been a "leftward migration" of the centre, then you claim the Tories have been forced to the right.?

This is the point about the leftward shift of the centre, it is making the Tories look right-wing when by historical standards they most certainly are not.
It is in this way that the cultural Marxists are winning.

I think you are mistaken to believe they can't win on a right-wing agenda, I used to be a strong supporter of Conservatives and tried to talk people into voting for them, the main response from people not intending to vote (biggest group) was that they weren't right-wing enough.
Weren't going to cut taxes enough, weren't going to lock up criminals enough, weren't going to leave the EU, weren't going to control our borders any better than Labour, weren't going to reverse the dumbing down in education.

It is not the left/centre vote the Conservatives are missing its the genuine right that has had enough of them. Including me, I'll not support Cameron at all, he is not a real Conservative.

Anonymous said...

The main reason that people I meet cite for not voting is "it won't make any difference".

That might arise in two ways. First there is no clear water between competing parties and second the winners promised much but deliver little.

It strikes me that the conservatives suffer from both these problems in relation to Labour. They promise managerialism rather than a different philosophy. In so doing they have conceded the political argument to the left. The problem is not new and is certainly not chocolate Dave's but he is doing nothing to arrest the drift.

GW misplaced obsession with ethnicity undermines an otherwise good case about the undermining of culture. We have had different race people in the UK since the dawn of history and most people, including GW himself will share some non-anglo saxon genes.

Guessedworker said...

Anon,

We are not a culture but a people, and the, as you put it, "undermining of culture" has no purpose other than to undermine our people.

This is so even if you strip out all the anti-nativism from transnational and minority interests and paint what remains with a liberal-left wash, ie. grant it the fig-leaf that advanced liberalism seeks to free the individual will from collectivist ties.

As regards your reification of mongrel Englishness, it's a classic strawman - recently given a scientifically incoherent if politically predictable run-out in the Telegraph and on Channel 4 (the DNAPrint subterfuge). The argument goes: "There are no pure-blood races anywhere in the world and no such thing as an English race, therefore interbreeding with Africans is cool and you should all do it." That is a genocidal recommendation, and if you are not Jewish, mulatto or African yourself you should be deeply ashamed of yourself.

Anyway ... pure blood is not what we claim. We are a distinct Northern European ethny, and as such we possess an inherent and particular human beauty which, in a healthy politic, we would be free to regard and protect.

Such self-interest is the norm in Nature and in Man. To say that it is "misplaced" or "obsessive" is to completely miss WHY this mighty natural obligation is disallowed uniquely to Europe's children. You make me suspect your motives, since I do not suppose you would consider ethnic self-preference at all misplaced or obsessive among Jews or Indians or Chinese.

So this is the question, Anon: do the English have the same right to protect their ethnic interests as any other people?

(I have, btw, NEVER received a negative answer from anyone who is intellectually competent).

Squander Two said...

> I have, btw, NEVER received a negative answer from anyone who is intellectually competent

Oh, please. "Before you answer my question, I must inform you that only stupid people have ever disagreed with me." And you were doing so well up till then.

> do the English have the same right to protect their ethnic interests as any other people?

Of course they do. Rights are kind of trivial that way. Other good questions are:

What are ethnic interests?

With what things are ethnic interests incompatible, and are any of those things worth having?

Regardless of whether a people have the right to defend them, is it a good idea to do so?

I should warn you all that failure to answer these questions in exactly the same way I would answer them would constitute absolute objective proof that you've been recently lobotomized.

Guessedworker said...

Is that your answer, my little liberal friend?

There is no answer from the liberal camp. That is my point, which you have demonstrated so ably.

Squander Two said...

I agree with quite a lot, but not all, of what you've written, actually. Not sure why you'd conclude from my last comment that I'm a liberal, in whatever sense you're using the word. But your ridiculous debating technique -- asking someone a question then telling them, before they answer, that only idiots reply "No", implicitly concluding that your own assertion proves you right -- is something that deserves dirision. I mean, come on. How old are you? Seven? There was no irony intended when I wrote "you were doing so well up till then." You were. Your reasoned and intelligent writing just made that last comment all the more incongruous. But I see from your response to me that it wasn't a one-off. Shame.


> I do not suppose you would consider ethnic self-preference at all misplaced or obsessive among Jews or Indians or Chinese.

In comparison to what? Facing genocide, no. Having a daughter fall in love with a man of the wrong colour and risk polluting the family, yes. A lot of Indians, in fact, migrated to Britain to get away from the misplaced and obsessive ethnic self-preference of the Indian caste system. And if one particular Jewish family had been obsessed with preserving their own racial purity, I wouldn't exist.

How about Hutus? Boers? Sudanese Arabs? Sure, the English have the same rights as they do to preserve their racial purity. But should they aspire to be like them?

Guessedworker said...

S2,

I certainly offer my apology for concluding that you are overly liberal. I did visit your blog to check - too briefly it seems.

As regards the remark in parentheses, I have enjoyed many encounters with blog-folk who quietly and sometimes very cleverly and indirectly commend us to die. These days I tend to cut the issue off at its legs, as you see. Normally, it's a no-risk strategy because no serious person can reply to that question, "Yes, the English must disappear from history because ..."

This time, though, the knee-capping caused offence! Ah well. I'll know next time.

Your attempt to answer the question at the level of "a daughter who falls in love with" etc does not crack the nut. If ALL our daughters fall in love with a Pygmy our common ethnic interest has been damaged, clearly. If only one of our daughters falls in love with a pygmy, guess what ... our common ethnic interest has been damaged. But on a corresponding scale.

Population issues are always issues of scale as well as principle, meaning that life consequences can and do defy principle. But they do not nullify it.

It is, after all, the principle (or theory) of self-defence, and not even John Locke himself could falsify that.

Squander Two said...

> no serious person can reply to that question, "Yes, the English must disappear from history because ..."

It is perfectly possible to answer "No" to the question you actually asked -- "do the English have the same right to protect their ethnic interests as any other people?" -- without believing that the English must disappear from history. Which is why I suggested that other question: what are ethnic interests? You are assuming a whole raft of answers to that question. I think it's possible to be intelligent and not to share those assumptions.


> If ALL our daughters fall in love with a Pygmy our common ethnic interest has been damaged, clearly. If only one of our daughters falls in love with a pygmy, guess what ... our common ethnic interest has been damaged.

I dispute your use of the word "clearly" here, because you have failed to explain what it even is that has been damaged. What, in your opinion, are ethnic interests? More to the point, what are common ethnic interests?

Guessedworker said...

Squander,

I will accord your question a technical if narrow answer.

The interests involved are ethnic genetic interests. In broad terms they are all the commonalities in phenotype that arise through adaption to domain. They are concerned with the maximisation or selection of what is adaptive. They are the evolutionary process at work in Man, causing him to favour in all circumstances and in every way the distinctiveness that has evolved in his own ethny.

The premier scientist working in this field is Frank Salter. But JW Holliday, who has blogged extensively at MR, is probably the second authority in this abstruse but critical area.

I will quickly give you an example close to home of EGI at work. You are part-Jewish so you will be very familiar with the classic Ashkenazic preference for a cosmopolitanised host. This preference causes gentiles and brings down upon Jewry the most fantastic costs. But any Jew who challenges it or discusses it from a neutral perspective with a gentile will be labelled a self-hater. Why the visceral reaction? Because weakening the host is a strategy advancing not individual Jews who indulge in it, but the group as a whole. It is a common ethnic interest - an EGI.

There's much more than can be said, of course. But I hope the shape of the interest emerges from this.

Anonymous said...

EGI is a prescripton for survival of a group with like genetic interest. It follows that ethnies usually have an interest in securing and maintaining a monopoly over a demarcated territory because it enhances their chances for survival. Thus if the English continue to allow mass immigration to their territory, their homeland, they face diminishment or extinction.

EGI recognizes that it is normal for an ethnic group or race to want to survive and to avoid displacement by others. It recognizes that mass immigration is ethnic competition over territory and that it negatively impacts reproductive fitness. It realizes that territory ensures survival, and human history is largely a record of groups expanding and contracting, conquering or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants. The loss of territory, whether by military defeat or displacement by aliens, brings ethnic diminishment or destruction - precisely what is happening in the “multicultural” West today.

Desmond Jones

Squander Two said...

I hate to be the one to break this to you guys, but, if you're looking for an authority on evolutionary theory, you ought to consider scientists first. Biologists, biochemists, and geneticists for preference.

> The premier scientist working in this field is Frank Salter.

No, Frank Salter is a B.A. M.Phil. -- not a scientist at all, then.

The most important development in the evolution of humans is that culture trumps genetics. It appears that Dr Salter doesn't know this.

Guessedworker said...

Oh dear, that's all much too pat, I'm afraid. It really would be a good idea for you to read On Genetic Interest before you make any judgement. Alternative, you can find much material, pro and con, at MR, GNXP and Dienekes.

JW Holiday, incidentally, is a senior geneticist.

For your elucidation, method defines science, not university degrees.

As a matter of interest, would you disbar Phil Rushton's work from consideration as "science" on the basis that he is only a psychologist? How about Kevin MacDonald who is a BA in Philosophy, an MS in Pschology and a PhD in Behavioural Sciences. Is he in or out? Both are unquestionably scientists, of course. Both are hugely brave men working in politically difficult, truth-telling specialisms. Neither are as scientific oin method, in my opinion, as Salter.

As for your statement that "The most important development in the evolution of humans is that culture trumps genetics" to what field are you referring? We were discussing ethnic kinship. Salter has done the maths on genetic distances and produced a cast-iron, evidentially-based, predictive model. Where is the like model for "cultural kinship"? I'll give you a clue. It doesn't exist. Boas was unmasked as a fraud. Today, environmentalism is a political faith ... simply something the Marxian left repeats over and again.

There is a degree of cultural kinship, but it is very limited, existing across borders, not within them. When universalists commend cultural connectivity within borders they always do so because it is a herald for genetic panmixia. It is a kind of hatred against us, as a distinct European people.

My impression of you is that, without really knowing it, you belong their modernity and go along with this. Much like the Conservative Party, in fact, you have absorbed the cultural Marxism that infected liberalism from the mid-1980s. You think you know what it is. You think you oppose it. But you can't, because opposition has positive values that you have been taught Pavlov-style to associate with wrongness and harm.

That effectively aborts your thinking before it can come to its natural conclusion. At the end of history, I am an intellectually free Western man. You are in chains.

Squander Two said...

> method defines science, not university degrees.

Who said anything about the definition of science? Not me. You said "premier scientist working in this field". To work in a given scientific field, you generally need to have studied the field sufficiently to have qualified in it. I doubt that someone with a BA, an MPhil, and a PhD would have failed to get at least a BSc because they couldn't be bothered with the distraction of academia. If that's not the reason, then what is? Then, yes, sometimes you get gifted, talented amateurs, who become very good in a given scientific field despite having no formal training in it. Such people may become rather good, but they do not become the premier scientists working in their fields, overtaking all the trained professionals. The only way that ever happens is if they become the premier scientist working in a field that they have made up for themselves.


> Where is the like model for "cultural kinship"? I'll give you a clue. It doesn't exist.

What a deeply stupid thing to say. I can quote Sophocles without being Greek; I can use the Roman albhabet without being Roman or even Italian or even European; Chinese people can use computers, invented by a Briton and developed by Americans; Iranians can build nuclear bombs, using the scientific knowledge of dead Germans, Jews, Britons, and Americans. The only knowledge that exists thanks to genes is instinct. Everything else is cultural.

The mechanisms whereby this happened to humans are well understood. It's a by-product of developing grasping hands and opposable thumbs and living in trees. Baby primates use their grasping hands to cling on to their mothers to avoid falling out of trees. A side-effect of this is that they see everything their mothers do. Evolution is efficient, in that traits that aren't necessary tend to die out -- hence the blindness of moles. Therefore, everything that a young primate can learn from its mother tends, over time, to stop being instinctive. And, indeed, if you take a young female chimpanzee away from her mother before her mother has any younger children, that chimpanzee will not know how to breast-feed her own children, not having seen her mother do it: the instinctive knowledge of how to breast-feed has died out in chimps, as it has been superceded by culture. This is what led to the massive hike in development speed of humans: while other animals can only develop new abilities through the slow process of evolution, we are able to communicate ideas to each other, and, with the advent of writing, we are able to store ideas for posterity.

The evidence for cultural kinship is all around us: language, buildings, roads, science, art, engineering, aeroplanes, and everything else short of the ability to breathe and walk. The way in which this arose through evolution is known. And there are plenty of viable mathematical models of evolution. So fuck knows what you're on about.

As for your last two paragraphs, well, personally, I prefer not to bother with glossing up insults in pseudo-polite language, which I view as a fundamentally dishonest and nasty thing to do; and I prefer not to indulge people who do. Since Laban probably doesn't want a troll-fight on his blog, I'll refrain from givign you the sort of response you really deserve and merely say that your expert analysis of my personality is grounded in science nearly as sound as Salter's. I note as well that you are repeating the same puerile trick that brought me into this conversation in the first place:

> That effectively aborts your thinking before it can come to its natural conclusion.

Yes, you see, you only disagree with me because your thinking has been aborted, you poor dear. Grow up.

Squander Two said...

By the way, I shan't repond to anything further you have to say here. I have other things to do at the moment. Just thought I'd point that out, in case you were to think that my lack of further answers to your pseudo-scientific bollocks is some sort of evidence that you've convinced me or that I've realised the error of my ways or something equally unlikely.

UK Hotels said...

I agree with your Blog and I will be back to check it more in the future so please keep up your work. I love your content & the way that you write. It looks like you’ve been doing this for a while now, how long have you been blogging for?

tripadvisor said...

Thanks for the feedback. Please send me an example of what you would like to see.