I was mulling over our conversation by phone the other evening. I know I have quite a short temper and am impatient when discussing points. I suppose this usually comes when I am talking to a liberal person who, because I do not agree with them, seems to automatically think that my disagreement with them makes me the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, an available aspiration perhaps, yet also impossible. I find this quite suspect.
Usually, after a few minutes (or under) of catching someone out by refusing to leave their points - however much they are asides - unaddressed, I am informed that the person does not want to speak on the topic, or 'argue'. For some reason, this seems to conveniently leave quite a lot of important topics off limit. If this sort of attitude was applied by those with any power, what recourse would a citizen have to point out to those with that level of power that they could have missed something, or where indeed wrong? Didn't Edward Snowden say that at some point?
The only way many of these topics can be declared settled by liberals is because they will only discuss them with other liberals who already agree with them for the most part, and come to that 'consensus' without allowing any evidence or argument they consider too heretical, worrying, bad taste, or out-group, regardless of the validity of the rejected evidence, or the depth or soundness of the counter-argument they are so quick to dismiss. Given that the dominant paradigm in contemporary academic science is that of liberalism, how can one address the progress of scientific knowledge or social policy itself if they are barred from discussing topics on account of the orthodox squeamishness that is characteristic of the liberal mind?
I do not think an intelligent consensus on the subject of race or third-world immigration is indeed in place. Science is most certainly not settled on the matter, and I do indeed consider quite a lot of research on the topic. The 'consensus' is imposed as a power dynamic to force through a narrow and dogmatic understanding and to prevent disagreement - a use of force to maintain the orthodox position. Passive aggression is the classic resort of the narcissist, the manipulator, and the coward, not the fraternal peacemaker.
I hear a lot of talk about what is "inclusive" or "non-discriminatory" or "fair" or "polite” or “democratic". I do not see so much attention applied though to what is true. I would remind you that when I write "liberal", I am not referring to someone who votes for the Liberal Democrats. Some people are liberal by personality, and some people are more conservative as well, much as both groups share a characteristic liberalism no matter what they pile on top of that by changing the names of the same position to something cooler sounding. In practice, in the realm of politics, all major political parties -The Green Party, the Scottish National Party, The Labour Party, The Conservative Party, The Liberal Democrats, everything you like - and that does include the ‘Far Right’ in the background of this by the way - are liberal in nature. The Conservative Party may adopt a more capitalistic economic policy, but they are by no means a 'right-wing' party, much as I am tired of your (very) out-of-touch jabs at The Express and The Telegraph. You will not find an active political party in the UK that takes anything but a liberal position on the existence of race. You will find small independent parties cropping up now and again that do not support third-world immigration. However, many of them still utilize liberal "race is a social construct" science. The ‘Far Right’ are just bog-standard racist egalitarians, liberal in every other way bar that slight variation.
I was annoyed when you suggested that England did not have a distinct traditional culture and that an indigenous British people did not exist, and that being British was nothing but a mentality. I remind you that the first Māori people only arrived in the country of New Zealand in about 1100. Yet somehow the Māori are still officially considered indigenous natives to New Zealand by global formality. Given that the first European inhabitants of the British Isles arrived far earlier that that, I think the argument that there are no indigenous British tribes is absurd. There is a difference between various groups of culturally-similar Indo-European tribes from a small geographical area stretching between the edges of France, and across Germany to the Nordic countries landing on these shores and inhabiting them for successive centuries, intermingling, and following the same customs and kinship bonds, generating a cooperative civilization of shared understanding, in some solidarity, and the modern post-war conditions of Sub-Saharan Africans, Jamaicans (again, Africans at root), Indians (like our unelected prime minister), and Middle Eastern and Subcontinental Asian peoples with wildly differing cultures, societies, and ways of behaving, and an entirely different mentality to the traditional European value-system that we have allowed ourselves to totally invert arriving in exponential waves, with no end in sight.
We are informed that the native birth-rate is down, and that these newcomers will boost the economy. How does that fact alone help our people? It allows the newcomers to thrive and earn money, and inhabit our houses, and make use of our civilization (if you would like to call it that), yes, but it is not really a particular bonus for anyone who is not an immigrant, or an immigrant of the past three generations, their dead being dead after all, as much as ours. Perhaps a better policy would be to put more effort into strengthening the bonds of British native families by banning abortions, dissuading feminist and misandrist ideology, and making conditions suitable via incentive for the protection of native children, with greater care placed on their safety, health, and educational development, in a patriarchal sense, so as to stimulate a new generation to replace the losses (and you damn well know that the term 'British' means white native citizens, as the British are historically unanimously white i.e. from this set of European tribes, behind your stubborn front). It would be nice if they had the faith to believe in themselves.
If 'white' people don't exist then I'd love you to write to the activists of Black Lives Matter with the same confidence and tell them that black people i.e. the descendants of the tribes of Africa, do not exist either, and that they should stop using this silly term 'black', or indeed 'people of colour' forever, and be realistic, and call themselves 'human' only, or else.
Rather than writing these diminishing natives off as a lost cause, and filling the population with non-natives, who, globally, in their home countries, are not at dangerously low birth-rate levels, what you are effectively doing is replacing the natural population. Much as you tout the Empire Windrush, I assure you, that early initiative was indeed not too different. If a national population is increased, and yet our birth-rates continue to decrease within it, there may be the same number of economic units artificially placed there again, i.e. slavish people, but, if we have a little think about that, the conditions are now there also for our not-too-distant disappearance from the scene.
The logical progression would be an increasingly small group of natives in direct competition with a huge, compound non-native demographic. If what you want to do is make money for companies and for the State, you're certainly doing it. Please would you explain to me why this would not simultaneously be an example of ethnic cleansing. If one is simply not allowed to comment in disfavour on the open policy on immigration i.e. indefinite immigration, or to say a bad word about any of this, then a native citizen simply cannot defend themselves from this, at least in words and by legal frameworks. I've typed this letter in quite a gracious 'normie' manner, as they say, just for a beginner's grasp on sanity.
Yes, you are correct. The British Empire maintained colonies in India in former days. Please could you explain to me why this legally validates Indian economic immigration to Britain these days. Justice is not tit for tat. If a man stabs another man in this country, the judge at his trial cannot award the right to allow his victim to stab him back. If colonialism is generally considered to have been a bad idea, then why allow the colonizing of our country by foreigners at our expense? Either we are against the principle of invading another country for the purposes of resource exploitation, or, assuming that this principle is not after all the great evil we have made of it, one can merely deduce that we are in some way behaving in a masochistic, self-defeating manner, and are simply too weak to defend ourselves and fight for the survival of our own people, much as we adore outsiders.
After all, Abby herself once received her only Christmas present that year from Andy - evidently still in his official Anglican pastor phase, during which he claimed that Christianity's god had descended personally to speak to him - as the knowledge that he had purchased a goat by proxy from some foreign gift-aid card company and had had him sent to the Third World. She commented to me that she would rather have had the goat. Much as I think I have a slight advantage over her in tending to animals, I'm inclined to agree. It's less likely, as a dedicated Vegan in a house with her fashionable (yet goat-friendly) Pescatarian-Vegetarian attempt, that I'm going to hold the goat down, slit his throat, gather the blood, skin him alive, and toss the twitching offal to the hyenas, or rape him, or put him to Black Magic purposes, or chain him up in misery and beat him with a stick, laughing, in a great big pile of mud and Tsetse flies. Or indeed request 20,000,000 more goats gratis.
This gift-aid goats gimmick has always confused me regardless, left wondering what good can come from keeping a goat to milk, given that, as I read it, 90% of the African population is lactose intolerant. I struggle to see how Africans impoverished to that degree could afford to expand their properties to provide their goat with the necessary new shelter space, and the daily feeding and watering supplies needed to keep him alive, surely an additional imposition of costs beyond their means to address. Are we breeding the poor goats for this specific purpose?
The history of the world is rife with examples of colonization and slavery, by Europeans, and non-Europeans alike, stretching back to before the Bronze Age. Just what is you point? As far as I was aware, it was British and American abolition on the parts of Europeans that ended the transatlantic African slave trade. Africans themselves made no effort to cease capturing their own countrymen and dragging them in chains to the coasts. Modern slavery still exists in some parts of Africa and the Middle East, let alone that sex trafficking and organised child abuse, pretty much everywhere, at global scale.
Shall we recall the treatment of the Irish, or of European indentured servants, often punished with more barbarity than the African slaves themselves, or remember the convicts sent in chains to work camps in Australia by Britain, for insignificant crimes usually arising from severe poverty and laissez-faire toff economics, the perennial approach of cruel Judeo-Anglo internationalism, or the British work-then-death camps of the Anglo-Boer War?
When Genghis Khan and the Mongol armies swept across from the East in the 13th Century, sacking parts of Eastern Europe, which is far worse in practice than it sounds from that glib encapsulation, invading territories far from their Mongolian steppes, establishing a Mongol Empire over thousands of miles, his armies and descendants massacred or enslaved innumerable Europeans with ferocious barbarity, much as they were eventually dislodged, as with the Muslim armies held back from conquering Europe altogether at the gates of Vienna, following centuries of conquest, not that both groups didn’t manage to rape enough European and Russian women so as to impart lasting change on our people.
Am I to presume that on account of Genghis Khan's campaign of barbarous, conquering terror eight centuries ago that we should consider ourselves in the 21st Century totally at liberty to resettle our entire British population to Mongolia through legal means, and media campaigns, and gushing liberal fundraisers and official NGO networks to the point of expecting native Mongolians to facilitate us, and provide us with jobs and accommodation (and national insurance numbers for free health care), even against their will, and to effectively take control of their society, and to demand that they respect us, up to the point that we campaign and befriend their leaders until their laws are changed to prevent insult to us, and that we can have them arrested if they do not allow us to continue moving into their country, and that if they state that any of this is in any way unfair, we are being totally - impeccably - reasonable if we justify our every action by reminding them of the Mongol invasion that the elite of their country carried out against us a good 30 generations before any living Mongolian here with us in our own time was born.
You know, I think the modern Mongolians might start a war with us if we kept up that attitude. That would surely be the sensible option for them to do, and I can't imagine they'd be holding their horses over that obvious will to survive.
Since British people don't seem to exist in your words, being a mix of early European tribes, that hallowed mix that keeps you held tight as could be to the descending lorises of the savanna, as opposed to, say, Agesilaus of Sparta, perhaps humans do not exist either, on account of our distant ancestral relatives having been single-cell underwater organisms, or indeed nothing much at all. Maybe the planet Earth doesn't exist either, on account of the Solar System, or indeed just the Big Bang, given that new post inflation local environment of quark-gluon plasma and all those elementary particles you enjoy approaching baryogenesis. Perhaps that's pushing it a little.
Is it just British people that you are claiming have no national indigenous population? The Brahmin priestly caste in India that represents the elite noble families is known for presenting light-skinned individuals, far lighter in skin-tone than the Sudra caste, and on down into 'the untouchables' that sit as beggars in the gutters of Calcutta. Pre-Indian civilization having being invaded by Eurasian Aryan ‘Proto-Indo-European’ steppe tribes in antiquity, after all, who (unfortunately) bred with the Indus Valley civilization as much as they invaded them, and ruled over them, which led to the very Brahmin culture that we now know as elite Indian, at least in accordance – to some degree when they can be bothered – with traditional Hindu society, which admittedly has had its knocks, given the Second World War. Do Indian nationals not exist, on account of tribal mixing many centuries ago?
As before, I would love to see you put that to one of them. If you claimed you were Indian in India, with absolutely no fundamental difference biologically – observable to others on exterior physical characteristics more than mere melanin and height and weight evaluations - from, say, Narendra Modi, I can assure you, despite having moved recently into their country, standing physically on Indian soil each day, that they would continue to recognise you as a British citizen abroad, and another silly European (given the Irish and Norman heritage), even if liberal politically correct dogmas obliged (or forced) the occasional dignitary or radical to humour you in private disgust and incomprehension, but most to perhaps question your sanity, or indeed campaign to have you arrested. A citizen of a country can theoretically - nowadays - be of any race. That does not make them a racial native and the two terms are not synonymous.
The argument you are using is that on account of the visible light colour spectrum being a spectrum, the distinct colours red, or green, do not exist. You would have to be very obtuse in your phenomenology, and perhaps slightly autistic, to suggest that a red apple was not red on this account. Much as genetics is a spectrum also, that does not mean there are not clusters. Also, you say there are tiny differences. A tiny difference in genes can have a massive result.
At root racial anthropology also is not superficial and is in no way solely about what colour skin someone has, although I often wish it was, as one finds in practice that beautiful bodies bring beautiful goodness and strong minds, and I personally appreciate the Greco-Roman Nordic phenotype, even though I fall far short of that apogee. Yours is a common strawman used by social construct activists to misrepresent this position. Also, the non-European races we are being forced to accept are generally those who pursue fast-life history strategies. I would hope you were aware of the ramifications of r/K selection. Not so lucky for their children either, or all animals in their countries, much as our youngest and most vulnerable and innocent have the worst time ever.
I had more to write, but I'm growing tired. I hope this is enough to work with. I am used to being passed off and dismissed as if I am not informed at all on these matters, and had never thought about them, and never researched them, and was simply acting out of "psychopathic hatred" or "blind discrimination". That is, quite frankly, not the case much as, with rational hatred and prudcnt discrimination, I feel no inner necessity to offer love to those who have nothing in common with me and who wish me ill.
Anyone who says the former about my position seems to be utilizing that disgusting pathology-branding technique as a cheap, effective way to weasel out of having to think about all this, more of a dogmatic gasp of moral outrage than any reasonable attempt to argue in good faith, like slamming shut the lid on a grated window box that opens between my side pit and their enclosed open-plan dungeon, letting in too much light and fresh air. You are a very Christian relic in that regard.
Quite obviously, I can back up my points, both logically, as I have done so far, all along every step of this letter, and, on request, with evidence, and can argue why that evidence is more accurate than conclusions drawn from a slanted liberal paradigm that refuses to examine anything it doesn't like, having decided its conclusions far in advance it seems. I review both liberal and non-liberal science, and do not limit myself to the safe and easy. I cannot usually say that of my opponents.
I hope you found this at least cogent. Much as you're all for the Western government policies based on this one sided liberal 'mono-science', it's a shame you never have the slightest whiff of doubt on the matter, even when someone presents arguments that you do not usually show any ability to counter sans a genuine spiteful psychopathy, let alone cogently rebut. I'm so used to being told I'm wrong over and over (and over) again, without much effort expended, that now and again I really do feel I have been conditioned to do nothing but return the favour, sometimes in a very snappy way, frustrated at the constant dismissal from a position that seems unable to give the slightest ground. As soon as a point cannot be explained at the other end, but doesn’t match what is already thought, I am told to stop talking about it, as if I could be hushed immediately in flurries of hands, like a swaddled child.
Anyhow, just some thoughts for the evening. Another long email for your inbox that I expect will sit ignored for months, if not forever, as my long, or candid emails usually are, and they are very long, aren't they, if we consider the previous 1000. I find topics like hard science and ethical philosophy and logic and historical statecraft genuinely interesting. I am tired of being told what to think though, in what feels like a closed, outrage bound echo-chamber that prevents free discussion. I don't understand why we censor out own minds to the extent that avenues are forever off limits. It's become like an inquisition, or a guild, and, beyond any popular political insult label dreamed up to describe the sort of positions I put forward, all I see I really am to someone when I don't shut up and get back in line, and on account of my ‘Orwellian wrongthink’, is, quite literally, a heretic. I don't want to go up in smoke along with all my books.
The National Socialist regime in Europe, nicknamed the "Nazis" by Allied propaganda journalists of the time, a mocking colloquialism that has certainly stuck since, and at the full exclusion of formal reality, is forever known for totalitarianism, and for the persecution of the Jewish people. I find it very sad to realise that, in this society, then as now, it's Europeans persecuting other Europeans, with relentless punitive force, a condoned and more powerful, more numerous majority of them against a struggling minority of independent thinkers, the latter relentlessly hounded, humiliated, and destroyed for the benefit of new Africans, Arabs, and Indians who do not really give a damn about their hosts on either side of this ridiculous natives-on-natives legal civil war. If our society, in 2023, is anything but totalitarian, then it is not easily apparent. Surely there is some strange irony to that, at least.
If Steven Emmott's team at Cambridge Microsoft Labs headquarters disagreed with you in some sense, or the simulations of MIT, or the likes of Deagel Forecasting, just to push the boat out with that idea, what would you feel over all this, and what would you do if they kept at it - batter down their door with angry fists, snarling, all "look here you fools!", charging in all guns blazing like a senescent Anders Breivik? Would you be the one to start a war with your own?
コメント