There will always be those among us who prefer purity of doctrine to anything else. In addition, we’re all understandably afraid of having PC anathema pronounced on us. The dread of being labeled a “racist” induces a primal urge to put leagues between ourselves and any group that is even slightly questionable.
Unfortunately, from time to time events in the real world have a nasty habit of intervening. As we fastidiously pick our way over the multicultural mud, raising the hem of our skirts high so as to avoid the tiniest stain, evil and brutal people who pay no mind to such civilizational niceties are at busy at their work.
That’s why Hell’s Angels are experiencing a sudden surge of growth in Denmark. According to Politiken:
- - - - - - - - -The Hell’s Angels biker group is experiencing a flood of new applications for membership, in particular for its support group AK81. The group normally receives only few enquiries in its web-based guest book, but the past week alone has seen 250 queries.
Seventy-five of those enquiring have asked to become members of the AK81 group, or to be invited to Hell’s Angels parties in order to gain affiliation.
AK81 is a support group for the Hell’s Angels. The acronym stands for the Danish words Altid Klar (Always Ready), while 81 are the alphabet numbers for H and A.
Showdown
The increase in membership enquiries comes in connection with a showdown in recent weeks between immigrant groups and the Hell’s Angels as well as shows of strength by Hell’s Angels members who have walked the streets of Copenhagen and Århus en masse.
The Hell’s Angels home page has introduced a special AK81 page providing direct mail to the group, thus preventing police from being able to track approaches.
Going fast
A concerned police force has, however, registered the flood of interest in being recruited to what is termed the Hell’s Angels ‘mini-army’.
“We are worried that this is escalating and involving more and more people,” says Deputy Chief Superintendent Jørgen Isalin of the National Investigation Support Centre.
“It’s all going very fast now and there is no doubt that more and more people are joining. This is also happening on the other side too where large numbers of anti-social youths are supporting criminal immigrant groups who cause trouble in the streets and are provoking the Hell’s Angels,” he says.
[…]
Last month the conflict between the two groups cost the life of a young man. Since then the showdown has become more open, with shots being fired, hand grenades lobbed and marches in which the gangs show their strength.
“First of all it was the other groups that bothered the Hell’s Angels. Then they started AK81, and now they feel strong enough to arrive at parties, pubs and techno parties to show off their insignia. That is something the other groups won’t accept,” says Isalin.
Perhaps this is the beginning of the real resistance.
When government fails to protect its citizens from violent gangs, it creates a vacuum, and it’s only natural that violent gangs should move in to fill the void. They’re not the kind of people with whom one would sit down to tea and crumpets, but they’ll get the job done.
The good burghers of Whoville sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. But what if the only rough men that are available are the kind we don’t want to associate with? What if the only people willing to defend our race are… well, racists?
I personally know people in Britain who are going to hold their noses and vote for the BNP. They’re not in the slightest bit racist or anti-Semitic, but the BNP is the only party which is willing to stand up for the country and support a traditional British identity.
That’s why I believe in opening lines of communication to people in all parties that seriously oppose the Great Jihad. Rather than wait until these parties expel all the anti-Semites and become perfect, why not look for those members who already have the opinions we want, but who support the party because they think it’s their only hope?
The anti-Semitism will fall away naturally anyway for a party that wants to become a viable national force. Serious anti-Semites will defect to the other side, because the Muslims are their natural allies, and the rest of us aren’t.
We don’t have the luxury of waiting until all parties become perfect. There isn’t enough time. Make no mistake about it: the big crisis is on its way, and it will reach parts of Europe in ten years or less.
When the time comes, what if the only people who are willing to stand up and oppose Islam are the “racists”? What will the fascistophobes recommend then? That we lie down and die rather than have any truck with race-nationalists? That we submit to the jihad rather than violate the pristine righteousness of our moral state?
In 2020, or 2015, or 2012, as the twilight of Sharia rolls across the land, those who would remain pure in their non-racist principles will still be wringing their hands and wincing in distaste, right up until the last moment, when the cry of “Allahu Akhbar!” resounds as the knife descends upon their necks.
So anyone who intends to survive that moment may want to lie down with the dogs now, even if it means getting up with fleas later. There will be plenty of time afterwards for flea powder — assuming that the Great Jihad can be defeated.
Would you rather be right, or effective?
Hat tip: TB.
51 comments:
Bravo for publishing this post Baron.
If government and the necktie wearing establishment fails to provide leadership (like it is doing in Italy), someone else less civil will.
The left politics and liberal media (and always including supposedly conservative but essentially liberal neocon factions) will christen them both, as fascists and rascists and beyond the pale. Screw them.
That decent folks will turn to the Hells Angels for support is as damning an incitement of current establishment as ever has been seen (and this is in Denmark!).
I've seen many lately who thinks it will take 30-50 years before islam is a real threat. A few even therizes it could take up to a century. I agree with Baron taht this process will be a lot speedier than these people thinks, maybe just 10-15 years before we have full sharia nations in europe. I don't say all countries will fall that fast but some will and that is bad enough. I'll rather take my chances with people like HA than islamofscists any day.
This is why GofV will always be on one of my 5 Favorites buttons...you tell it like it is...no PC...
The 55 Signers - (some were clergy and were called the Black Regiment)- were considered radical in their time...Thank God for them...
To quote one 'radical'...
"...Give me liberty or give me death."
P.H.
I wouldn't get too hopeful on the Hell's Angels fighting on behalf of Western Civilization.. they'll fight on behalf of defending their drug-selling territory, but that's about it.
And this is one group that actually has been more violent outside the USA in the drug trade than they have been inside it.
Fellow Peacekeeper, truth well spoken, and kudos Baron, for non pc post.
Actually this situation puts the authorities in an interesting fix, they can either act as force of reason and going after both groups with every means disposible, to preserve law and order, which will be the preferred way of handling the situation. However to do so they will have to put their PC aside and stop treating the immigrant gangs softly. The alternative is to continue the PC behavior and going after the Hells Angels and support groups and more or less leave the immigrant gangs alone. If this happens, they will only fuel the support for the Hells Angels and like groups in the population, and then the situation will become more and more explosive.
Personally I think that the elites and the authorities don't know how to handle this and that the situation will start to get out of control, sooner rather than later. And when it starts in earnest there is no way to tell where it will end, but one thing is for sure when things get rough it won't be just between the bikers and the immigrant gangs, it will spread like a wildfire, other groups will join in, as there is also clashes between White Pride/Soccer Hooligans and Antifa supporters going on at the moment and more conflicts and groups are likely to be drawn into the vortex as things get more volatile...
So I think that the authorities have exactly one chance to stop this and that is to put aside the PC and multicultural ball and chain and start calling things as they are, and do what should have been done years ago. If they don't the Hells Angels and others will take the torch away and start to set the agenda, and we will have a society in dissolution and getting very close to civil war situation.
I don't know about Hell's Angels but similar things are said here in Michigan, USA about our notorious Michigan Militia which some elitists consider to be borderline vigilantes, but many of us know that they could well be our final line of defense.
The Baron is right about the Rough Men among us.
The only way to fight a sewer rat is to get down into the sewer with it, and worry about getting cleaned up later. Folks like bikers, and redneck gun huggers will naturally be in the forefront of the physical battle against jihad because they are not afraid to get their hands dirty. And, they don't take any cr*p off anyone.
In the real world, we take our allies where we can find them...and if they can help us fight the enemy, then praise the Lord and pass the ammo!
I'd prefer an ally who rode a Hogg to one one rode a Schwinn any day!!
I think the question is not would you rather be right or effective, but rather would you rather survive and win the struggle against Islam, or die. That is the heart of the matter. I do not like racists, but if I have only two choices: ally with them to fight Islam and survive, or not ally with them and die, it's pretty obvious which I will choose. There are those in the counterjihad movement (or at least claim to be) who would rather be morally untainted no matter the cost. Sure, it's a nice idea, but that's all it is: an idea. Real life is a lot more murky. I believe we should do what it takes to survive, no matter what. Survival is the single most important thing--evolution teaches us that.
Very good post, Baron. Well said!
Hell's Angels? Now there's a deal with the devil that they may well come to regret.
But it's true, nature abhors a vacuum.
Natalie,
Being much more detached from the forum (but no, of course I couldn't stay away) -- and having my idea of the blogosphere as something important more or less scattered -- I have to say that you are one of the commenters I enjoy the most to read. You always make sense in a very straight-forward way.
Several observations:
1. I predicted this (criminal organizations with lots at risk) will be the only ones effectively contesting the streets.
2. The authorities likely CANNOT stop the Hells Angels. To do so requires tough men willing to infiltrate the organization, and willingness to sentence said members to long, long prison sentences.
HA face less competition in Europe, because the prison sentences (risk) are far lower than the US, violence as a tool against rivals has little comeback (unlike the US where long prison sentences discourage making a sensation of yourself aka target by mass killings and such).
HA are not going away, because the Authorities even if they wanted to have no tools effective against them. Disarmed in police/law as well as military.
A few thoughts
Running off at the mouth has gotten the anti-islamization groups nowhere; unless they are looking for S&M recruits what want to be beaten up and have their testicles massaged.
The Hells Angels is a 1% group that will not shirk from violence.
This is a good thing, TPTB need to worry about what they have wrought, and while unsavory beating men with ax handles is effective at moderating behavior.
The #1 motivation for inmates to form prison gangs is for protection. While the Hells Angels is not a prison gang, it’s a motorcycle club the same principle seems to apply here.
It has to go to violence because the differences are too basic, too fundamental; the sooner the better.
It's really just the return of feudalism. In feudal times you paid the Big Lord for protection, in serfdom or rents or whatever, and his private militia protected you from the ravages of some other Big Lord's private militia. The ancestors of today's European nobility were simply the medieval equivalent of the Hell's Angels. We're devolving.
There are those in the counterjihad movement (or at least claim to be) who would rather be morally untainted no matter the cost.
I assume you are referring here to Charles Johnson. He would better be described as a member of the CounterEurope group.
Or, more accurately, the Counter Anyone Who Does Not Worship America group.
After that I guess he raises his gusto against anyone who doesn't acknowledge Iraq's immense contribution to Western civillisation.
islam o' phobe, you would be correct in your assumption. I'm American, and I love America, but this should not preclude criticism of America. As Winston Churchill once said: "Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." I feel that Charles only wants to criticize other countries, not America, and that's not right. America certainly hasn't been perfect.
Conservative Swede, thank you very much for what you said. It means a lot to me.
Traditionally speaking, wise rulers and sophisticated police organizations have cultivated a sort of balance between criminal gangs, as they will compete and tend to hold each other in check naturally if handled correctly -- and that also means the occasional application of breath-taking brutality by the authorities.
Normally one would expect the authorities to mysteriously -- nod, nod, wink, wink -- somehow be unable to perfectly handle the Angels until the Angels manage to bring the jihaddi gangs under control. And then step in themselves, busting heads and burning club houses until the whole anarchic mess was reduced.
But these days the situation is different. The authorities are neither sophisticated nor morally prepared to apply brutality in defence of innocence.
So, much as BB points out, especially in Europe, but likely elsewhere as well, the vacuum created by the authorities will be filled by people who don't care about conventional legitimacy, and we can only hope that some of those will be resistance rather than jihaddis.
Certainly the jihaddis have been filling that vacuum themselves until now. The rapes of native European girls have been directly produced by the cowardice of the politicos and the police no less surely than if they had committed those rapes themselves.
It is by now only a question of whether the jihaddis will be crowded out of the power vacuum by non-jihaddi nativist elements.
I must say that it places the Jewish members of the resistance in an extremely uncomfortable position. It is not pleasant to make common cause with the sort of folks that murdered your grandparents.
One hopes that BB is right, and that the dedicated anti-semites will precipitate out of the resistance to make common cause with the jihaddis, as their nazi forebears did. I am not as calmly sanguine as he is about the inevitability of that development. Europe has not had an unblemished record in that regard
But ultimately all these things come down to a question of who is willing to break heads. Without the willingness to shed blood it is all vanity and a blowing of wind.
If those who are charged justice and the defence of innocence are too dainty to break heads, then it will eventually (if we're lucky) be done by those who are interested primarily in drug dealing turf.
In the US we are given to saying that if guns are made illegal, then only criminals will have guns. It is the same with common decency. If common decency is made illegal then only criminals will have common decency.
Ironic, ain't it?
I will however direct everyone's attention to Robert Spencer's comment on a related subject over at Jihad Watch at http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022665.php .
Just to give a taste here:
"And I think that a race-based approach is wrong in a number of ways. To repeat:
1. It's the wrong way to fight the global jihad. The jihad is not a race, Islam is not a race, Muslims are not all of one race. Those who are threatened by the jihadists are not all of one race. The issues between the Islamic world and non-Muslims are not racial. They are about religious supremacism. Bringing in race just confuses the issue, and allows jihadists and their de facto allies among the Eurabian elites to claim that this whole thing is about racism.
2. To form one group for indigenous Europeans, as has been done in several countries, reduces virtually every issue to the one non-negotiable issue of race and ethnicity, discourages cooperation, and thus encourages Balkanization, works against the idea of representative government, and obscures the common values of Judeo-Christian civilization that are shared by people of many races and ethnicities.
3. This approach hamstrings and marginalizes the anti-jihad movement. Many people who oppose the Islamization of Europe will never join with a race-based party to do so. As I said above, Hugh Fitzgerald and I have often commented here over the years about the tragedy in Europe: the mainstream political parties have completely abdicated any responsibility to deal with the Islamization of Europe, thus leaving the field open to groups that obscure the issue with racial politics.
4. Many, many people have written here, and will no doubt write again in response to this post, that the parties that speak of race are the only ones in Europe that are doing anything to resist Islamization, and thus they deserve the support of all those who believe there is something worth defending in Western non-Muslim civilization. I don't think that is any sounder an argument than the claim that we must support Hizballah because it builds schools and runs charities when not lobbing rockets at Israeli civilians.
Also, people I respect have pointed out that European culture is being overwhelmed and transformed by out-of-control Muslim immigration, and there is nothing wrong with defending it from that. I agree. But while culture has a racial component, culture and race are not identical. To reduce culture to race on a continent that has seen six million sacrificed to the idolatry of race and blood is not, in my view, a wise way to defend European culture -- and there must be articulated a sane and moral alternative that is clearly distinct from that and rejects it utterly.
Geert Wilders in the Netherlands has managed to mount a strong stance against Islamization while avoiding dalliance with racial groups. Other Europeans should imitate Wilders. Otherwise the mainstream parties, as complicit as they are in the Islamization of Europe, can pretend that Europe faces a choice between becoming Eurabia and reviving the gas chamber.
There are other ways, there have to be other ways, to deal with this."
As much as I welcome Baron's post and the actions of the Hell's Angels in Denmark, this post and the comments show just how very effective the racist slur is.
I'm a staunch BNP supporter, and the racist slur has no effect on me. But what is clear is that people like Spencer - who has no understanding of the importance of British (any national) identity and how it is being eradicated NOT BY ISLAMISTS - uncritically accept that all nationalist movements are inherently racist.
The racist slur is a marxist Owellian control brickbat used to stiffle debate and criticism of their destructive policies. It is a bankrupt slur, a hypocritical slur, a biased slur because the marxists only apply it to predominantly white European indigenous people who have a striong sense of identity and who want to preserve their identity and traditions and nation for future generations. We in the BNP for example kind of object to the colonisation of our nation and the abandoning of British laws and traditions to appease aliens who hate us and seek to impose their traditions and values upon us.
All at our expense of course.
What Spencer and people who share his opposition to nationalist movements need to realise is that the real racists are the marxists who are out to destroy western civilisation. The EUSSR is the best example of all and if you read Fjordman, you will see how this dispicable soviet is going about this task with vigour.
With Baron's permission, I would like to post a fresh comment containing links to a recent debate featuring the deputy leader of the BNP, Simon Darby with BBC Asian Network (a radio channel solely for UK Asians, a great example of how identity politics works in the UK) along with a comment posted as a follow up.
The equating of nationalists as racists has to end,it is playing directly into the hands of the very people who are working with Islamists to destroy us.
Here is the link to Simon's interview:
Simon Darby - British & English Identity
Simon's interview begins at about 31 minutes in.
Snippets from the comments to this on Simon's blog:
"An Asian reporter who insists she is English yet supports organizations which the English aren't allowed to join such as the Asian Network,the Asian business association,black lawyers association etc etc.
Are these people aware of their own hypocrisy and double standards?.Why on earth would they want to deny us the same rights that they have?"
"Funny really, if she's British then why is she on asian radio?
Why is there an asian radio , isn't that divisive."
"This was a marxist inspired attack on British/English identity. As well as asking her if she is "native British/English", why is she presenting a radio programme aimed, not at her fellow native Brits but at Asians?"
"There was another question begging to be asked:
Should people be friends with anyone who supports or is involved with any Identity based organisation? Black Police Officers Association, The Jewish Chronicle, Muslim Council of Great Britain and erm, BBC Asian Network?
There are lots more but identity politics are perfectly acceptable to marxists. As long as the British and especially the English, don't join in. They're "waycists" obviously."
Marxism is every bit as destructive to the west as Islam is. Together they form a lethal cocktail for us and both of them have to be strongly opposed. The alternative, acceptance, will result in the destruction of the greatest societies in human history and will take humanity back into the darkness.
The recent HA<->2G (2nd Generation Immigrants - some now 3rd, actually), has been taking place a few kilometers from where I live, and I follow it quite a bit in the media.
And I hate to disappoint some around here: It is more about drug market share than about ideology. The police is on record with that.
Mentioning 'police', this coincides with a quite negative development in the Danish police force. We recently had a major reform of the force, which can best be described as half-botched, in that reports of crime is rising significantly (10-20 %), while persecutions (the result of police investigation) is falling at a similar ration. A lot of crime simply goes unpunished.
Further, the police is increasingly adopting a "We won't inflame the situation" attitude instead of using the solid "Massive display of strenght" that deters criminals much more effectively.
During the HA<->2G showdown, police was controlling HA closely, toting machineguns and barring the HA members from even purchasing a cake or a beer at the local pubs. A Danish law makes that possible when HA and the like are out in uniform - that's part of our initiatives against gang violence.
The 2G guys, however, were not wearing uniform - or their looks was a sufficient uniform anyway. They followed in the wake of HA and widely harrassed pub owners in town, even blackmailing them ("Stupidity fines") when they would refuse to serve the intimidating crowd.
Police did nothing to stem this behaviour.
All told, I ascribe the increasing interest in AK-81 to a perceived (and real) weakening of our police force :(
henrik, thanks for the summary. et tu, denmark?
mind you, we've all realized that things must head this way. i'm just surprised that the rot is so far advanced in denmark.
any reliable figures for the muslim population of denmark? it would be interesting to know to try and determine how big it has to get to prompt something like this...
I tend to agree with Henrik, it's far more likely that any violence in attributable to criminal turf wars than the defense of anything good, noble, or proper.
I don't accept the 'Which flavor of tyranny do you prefer?' premise. There are ways short of turning a community into a Mad Max movie that should be attempted first.
The Danes might want to look towards some American examples of citizen efforts to address governmental failure. Two groups that come immediately to mind are the Guardian Angels anti-crime group and the Minuteman border security alien group.
Both were legal, honorable, and successful in their own rights (though the left did attempt to smear the Minutemen).
Actually, we have (or had? Didn't hear much about it lately) something very similar to the Guardian Angels, called 'Natteravnene'. They'd go around and give a decent helping hand, and call in the police when things got rough.
Socialists didn't like it, of course, as it was voluntary and outside the control of the State :)
The general trend towards all citizens working too hard to pay the taxes, and in return expecting the State to fix everything, is unfortunately weakening the civil society systematically.
Baron - could you please define 'racist' for us before we comment?
Yes, the American Left tried to smear the Guardian Angels as vigilantes here also for the same reason - control. They attempted to smear the Minutemen as racists also. But it didn't work in either case.
The takeaway is that if you do anything at all there will be someone attempting to smear you. The answer of course is to grow thicker skin and do the right thing.
Defiant Lion --
BNP members are welcome here. I know how well the BNP treated Lion Heart, and that tells me that the party is not the den of evil Nazis that some people would have us believe. I'm perfectly happy to debate the issues with BNP members.
I hope that someday the BNP will remove its "whites-only" restriction so that Michael Nazir-Ali and my friend Patrick Sookhdeo may become members if they wish, since they are among the staunchest defenders of Britishness that one can find.
Henrik, Chalons, et al. --
Of course this is a matter of drug-dealing and turf wars; that's what gang behavior is all about. And that's what a "civil society" is designed to suppress.
But civil society has departed, and the older ways are returning. As Queen pointed out, we are headed backwards towards a new feudal system, in which private armies of thugs protect local citizens who pay them for the privilege of going about unmolested.
Another model for the future of Western Civilization is Afghanistan and Waziristan, where the warlord rules. Those who are ruthless and violent are the ones who make the rules and enforce what little order there is.
When the state fails to exercise its basic function of protecting its citizens and maintaining the rule of law, this is what will happen. Eventually people will realize the toothlessness of the state, stop recognizing its legitimacy, and refuse to pay any more extortionate taxes.
For those of you who want a more comprehensive description of the ongoing "gang wars" in Denmark:
In English.
EnglishBlondie --
Baron - could you please define 'racist' for us before we comment?
I wish I could. “Racist” has become an all-purpose term of opprobrium, thrown around willy-nilly at anyone with whom one disagrees.
One amusing definition: “A racist is anyone who is winning an argument with a liberal.”
One can be called a “racist” for opposing a prescription drug-entitlement, or for doubting the seriousness of global warming. Virtually anyone who opposes the Progressive agenda is a racist.
However, a black person who hates white people is not a racist, and a Mexican who wants the gringos to return to Europe is not a racist.
My own definition — what I mean when I say “racist” — would be something like this: “a person who believes that membership in a recognizable genetically distinct population is the paramount characteristic for human societies, and that members of such groups have inherent psychological traits which define them and which cannot be changed.”
By my definition, anyone who refers to Clarence Thomas as a “traitor to his race” is a racist. But those who prefer the company of people like themselves are not racists; they are normal human beings.
Baron,
My own definition — what I mean when I say “racist” — would be something like this: “a person who believes that membership in a recognizable genetically distinct population is the paramount characteristic for human societies, and that members of such groups have inherent psychological traits which define them and which cannot be changed.”
This is a good effort for a definition. However, we'll need take this through a dialectic process bit more.
Your definition ends up right between what I refer to as "race realism" and "racism", and thereby blurring this important distinction.
A key component of what I refer to as "racism" is to see other races as icky (which implies the view of race as a "paramount characteristic" and possibly more). This is not present among race realists. A race realist will however recognize that different racial groups have inherent psychological traits which cannot be changed (once again we have to make the distinction between groups and individuals here). Quite as there are inherent psychological traits between men and women which cannot be changed (referring to them as groups, single individuals will always be able to break the pattern).
An earnest and enlightened view means not seeing other races as icky, but at the same time recognizing the inherent differences among different races. In a sober and enlightened view one will also notice the good features of any race, and not ranking them hierarchically according to e.g. IQ. E.g. with the black race there are both strengths and weaknesses. Race realism means to recognize which they are.
I tried to have this discussion with Lawrence Auster, but that made him see me as a race traitor that was "into black culture". Lawrence Auster is almost sensible. But unfortunately I think he ends up being a racist. Black people are certainly icky to him. Auster has a very confused set of attitudes. At the same time he's a knee-jerk anti-anti-Semite, which we saw e.g. in his reaction when according to him I didn't treat Tanstaafl sufficiently as a pariah. But there's no surprise really that Auster is seriously confused, when taking in account that he's into astrology.
I find it funny that the Hell's Angels are even over in Denmark - these guys sure get around.
I don't know if making a deal with the devil ever pans out to be a good thing, but it seems that the average white guy struggles with the thought of having to actually physically attack another human being, whereas, the Hell's Angels' members probably take some enjoyment in it.
Gangs, whether the Hell's Angels, Asians, or others, are notorious for killing one another when it comes to settling drug scores. Fighting with the Hell's Angels may just mean that the Hell's Angels have a monopoly in the drug trade with the help of those who are merely trying to eliminate the threat of Muslims. If these new recruits are wanting to fight, they probably should just start their own militia of sorts to protect people in their areas and such. You don't want to be indebted to the Hell's Angels, lest they decide to feed you to the fish.
Conservative Swede --
You are right; the definition as I worded it could help confuse the difference between “race realists” and “racists”.
There are inherent physical differences between the races besides the obvious ones like skin color and epicanthic folds. Africans (particularly the Masai) make better runners. Eskimos are better adapted for digesting meat and animal tissue, since their diet is almost exclusively carnivorous. Caucasians are less likely to get a vitamin D deficiency even when living in the higher latitudes. And so on.
These are real, quantifiable differences which can be observed empirically, and established in controlled experimental settings. Therefore they are not controversial (at least to me).
Psychological differences are harder to measure. They rely on subjective impressions and imprecise measurement with inadequate tools, and — most importantly — it’s impossible to screen out the influence of cultural differences. All the findings depend not on empirical observations, but on statistical results over large populations.
And if such differences exist, they are only statistical. Even if the group means are different, all racial groups have a broad overlap of characteristics in the middle of the bell curve.
I think there probably are inherent differences in temperament, intelligence, emotional disposition, etc. among different races. But none of this has been proven to my satisfaction; therefore I won’t cite it as fact. It’s doubtful that it ever can be proven, outside of a fully eugenic society in which embryos can be brought to term in artificial wombs and raised by robots. Only then could the effects of environment and culture be totally eliminated.
Given the pernicious usage to which such assertions can be put, I choose to leave them out. There are probably inherent psychological differences, statistically speaking, among the races. But only probably.
There are lots more but identity politics are perfectly acceptable to marxists. As long as the British and especially the English, don't join in. They're "waycists" obviously."
---------------------------
This is well-advanced in the US also. I call it the "everybody gets to be racist except white people rule." It needs to be stated in those blunt terms at every opportunity. It's no use to pussy-foot around and talk about hypocrisy and double standards etc. because then the multi-cultis will launch into their verbose comments on "white privilege" and muck everything up. Just keep repeating it in their faces: "Everybody gets to be racist except white people. Isn't that what you're saying, in essence?" It puts them on the back foot in a wonderfully effective way. Another effective tactic is to take the mission statements of these "Asian" and "black" exclusive groups and substitute the word "white" for "Asian" and "black" -- don't change anything else. Then ask why the mission statement all of the sudden changes from non-racist to "racist" with only the substitution of one little word.
Baron,
I'm glad we are in agreement.
And if such differences exist, they are only statistical.
Well, both physical and psychological differences are statistical just the same. E.g. Chines people are typically short, still the tallest man on Earth is Chinese.
Psychological differences are harder to measure, but in no way impossible. Otherwise we might as well just give up social sciences altogether. Blacks, Eastern Asians, etc., behave differently in groups; when the create societies. There is ample of historical records as empirical evidence. And there are generalizations that can be made that have never been countered in history. Certain races always do certain things, but never do others. Always show talent for certain things, while lacking in others. But of course, this will always be a matter of dispute.
I assume (without much ground) that there has been some dialogue between members of BNP and Spenser of Jihad Watch. And I cannot pretend to know what Spenser's evaluation of BNP is.
That said, in fairness I have to point out that Spenser does not mention BNP in the item I gave the URL for and quoted. Nor was he focused on racism as such.
He was talking about neo-fascists in a general way, and stating his opposition to authoritarianism, rather than stating that one or another group had a fascist or racist orientation.
BTW racism is a variety of collectivism that asserts that race is the standard whereby people should be judged and related to.
Collectivism is an ethical standard that asserts that the standard of value in human life is the collective rather than the individual -- that men are to be judged by the collective they belong to, and their value to that collective.
Racism is simply the collectivism that asserts that the particular collective whereby men should be judged is their race.
There is much confusion on this subject because there are many varieties of collectivism which assert different collective dimensions as the standard of judgment.
For racists - race
For communists - class
For nationalists (in the original sense) - nation
For mohammedans - religion
For sectarians - church
etc...
This is also why people become confused, calling all sorts of things racism that have nothing to do with race -- doctrines that resemble racism in their collectivist outlook.
This is also why idiots object to the resistance to mohammedan religious supremacism as racism. Being strongly identified with their collective, and completely collectivized in their thinking, they see any objection to their gang as a gang-to-gang hostility -- it's how they think.
The great contribution that Europe and America have made to the culture of man is individualism, the doctrine that men are to be measured individually according to universal moral principles, not by their group.
And that is a large part of what we are fighting for here.
So for many of us there is a terrible irony in the idea of defending individualism and the rights of the individual, by making common cause with collectivists of any sort, whether racists, chauvinists, whatever.
I will toss these two cents into the conversation -- in practical active matters, fists-in-faces sorts of things, one might very well have to make common cause with people who differ ideologically. It's a cold practical question of short term and long term interests and outcomes.
But in the battle of ideas that rages now, it is a different matter altogether.
It is an altogether different thing to say "I love the West as the home and birthplace of freedom and human rights" or to say "I love the West because I'm white and so are all the other Westerners".
I don't think you can really win a debate by asserting a tiny variation on your opponent's argument.
Picture a mohammedan saying "I'm for the mohammedans because I'm a mohammedan" in argument with a westerner saying "I'm for the west because I'm white". Not very inspiring is it?
It could however be a different thing to ask the local skin-heads to kick some jihaddi gang butt.
It's a problem that has probably been with us since the first wars men ever fought.
It is an altogether different thing to say "I love the West as the home and birthplace of freedom and human rights"
---------------------------
Here we go. The problem with turning the West into an "idea," instead of a series of interconnected concrete nations of people with historical and cultural ties reaching back 3500 years, is that you can't then defend the actual people of those nations, only the "idea." This leads to the type of thinking that the people can just be replaced, as long as the "idea" remains the same. Which leads us straight into mass immigration and the inability to defend ourselves from it -- the current status quo. Britain will still be Britain if the "idea" of Britain stays the same, but all the native British people are no longer there? Is that what you mean? Even if that were true, (which it is not) that doesn't really happen in real life anyways. In real life the non-Western immigrants are proud of their own cultures and don't want to adopt someone else's -- they just want the land -- and the buildings -- and the infrastructure -- and the welfare systems. Before people came up with this notion of nations being "ideas", instead of concrete realities, it was pretty easy to see when some other group wanted to grab your land and push you out of it. Now we can't see it anymore because we're blinded by this thought of ourselves as an "idea."
Queen,
I admire your ability to convey powerful ideas so concisely and clearly. You are like a hot knife through butter.
Joeblough,
This whole collectivism vs. individualism thinking is a relic from the 20th century. It's mechanical ideological thinking, which, just as Communism and Libertarianism, always provides answers for everything according to a simplistic ideological formula. Such simplistic formulas convey no true knowledge. It's the tool for people who know nothing of the world, and do not intend to learn.
You are too good for this. Approach the world with curiosity instead.
joeblough:
Would a group holding 'universal moral principles' form a 'collective'?
Are there 'universal moral principles'? Would those be the ones chosen by 'individualists'?
Are all 'collectives' morally equivalent?
I would be very grateful if you good folks would cut me a little slack.
Queen: I rally am not engaged with floating abstractions. I did not say, nor do I think that the west is just 'an "idea"'. Obviously, the west is a place, and a population, and a culture, and a tradition, and a political body and a set of ideas born in that culture and held by the people. I'm not a complete dunce.
You quote my words correctly but I think you miss my meaning. I'm differentiating between fighting to defend ideals, and fighting to defend a gang. I'm not sure why that's not obvious.
That ideals are held by real people with real cultural traditions does not somehow stand in opposition to that notion. I believe that men are at their best when fighting for noble ideas. Any fool can engage in a gang war -- in fact, fools generally do.
And I've got nothing against fighting to defend one's friends and neighbors. However I think this fight goes beyond that level. This is not only our friends and neighbors and home turf, but the fate of civilization and humanity for the next millenium also hangs in the balance.
Conservative Swede: I'm really not sure what you're driving at. You used a lot of adjectives in your comment, but I didn't get much from it except your evident disapproval. Collectivism is a philosophical doctrine, and I stated what I believe that doctrine to be, and contrasted it with the doctrine that I hold superior. Seems pretty innocent to me.
I do not however like your implication that I lack curiosity. You don't know me. And we're all too grown-up here to accept Ad Hominem as a valid argument.
I did notice that you want to give me some benefit of the doubt, so thanks for that.
EnglishBlondie: I don't have anything against collectives, only against collectivism as a moral standard. And, yeah, a group holding 'universal moral principles' could form a collective. Why not?
I used that phrase 'universal moral principles' because there are all sorts of erroneous ethical doctrines that assert that one set of rules applies to members of one group, whereas other rules apply to members of other groups. I meant universal in the sense that the same rules apply equally to everybody.
Mohammedanism is a fine example here. They have one set of rules for men and another for women. One for mohammedans and another for outsiders. One for Christians and Jews, and another for Hindus and Buddhists and pagans. And mohammedans ONLY measure people by what group the belong to. They are fully committed collectivists -- and hold, as near as I can tell, no universally applicable moral principles.
Yes, I believe there are universal moral principles. So far as whether those would be "the ones chosen by 'individualists'", not necessarily. A person can hold to individualism in their approach to the moral judgment of men, and hold other and mistaken principles at the same time. I don't think that individualism considered alone is a guarantee of comprehensive moral understanding, even though I think that individualism is a correct doctrine.
Of course I don't think that all collectives are morally equivalent. And I certainly hope that I haven't written anything that would cause you to believe I do. You can just as easily have a crowd of moral paragons or a crowd of rats.
Again, there is no problem with groups as such, but rather with the moral principles that govern relations between the members of a given group and between them and their neighbors. You can have a group with lousy amoral standards, or with perfectly correct and humane standards.
There are all sorts of good and bad reasons for organizing people into groups.
joeblough --
Excellent summation. I couldn't have put it better myself.
Baron,
Thank you.
And my complements on a great site, your impressive contribution to the cause and some terrific writing.
What will Europe due in 30 years, when Muslim immigrants make up 25% of the populations, and the unique cultural heritages of European nations have been obliterated by the EU? The Islamic world is strengthening by just numbers and wealth as long as oil drives the world economy. All it will take is one or two effective leaders in the muslim world to create a true panislamic movement. Then what will Europe due when an organized Muslim alliance across the Med. begins to dictate to them about 'proper' treatment of European Islams. What happens when the EU faces an alliance willing to put an army of Arabs, Iranians, Africans, maybe even Turks into southern France, Spain, and Italy to 'protect' their Muslim brothers? What will Europe due then? The age of power politics has not faded away. Europe signs it's own death warrant, if this keeps up all it has to do is wait for the executioner.
Joeblough: I'm differentiating between fighting to defend ideals, and fighting to defend a gang. I'm not sure why that's not obvious.
---------------------------
Who is proposing fighting to defend "a gang"? We are fighting for our culture, our people, our buildings, our ancestor's graveyards, our languages, our literature, our artwork -- our whole civilization. I'm not interested in fighting for "human rights." If you make it about fighting for "human rights" then you have to fight for everyone's "rights", not just ours. I'm not interested in fighting for the "human rights" of Muslim citizens in Britain to say, rename whole sections of that country (as they are proposing to do in parts of London), dig up that country's graves and replace them with their own dead,erect giant mosques that destroy the London skyline, etc. I'm interested in defending Britain's right to not have Muslims rename its places, dig up its graves, destroy its artwork, push out its language -- etc. It's not about "human rights" or "ideals" at all. It's about us having stuff, and about other people wanting to take our stuff away from us. It's that simple. We're not "a gang" -- we're the owners of the Western Civilization, and the Western lands. And we're defending our property, as is our just and manifest right to do so.
Queen:
I'll take one more stab at this.
To be honest, I'm not altogether sure if we are really disagreeing about anything.
If we are it might be about the universality of human rights, which words you put in what I call scare quotes, viz. "human rights".
There is a traditional attitude, strong here in the US, and probably fairly common over in Europe, that abstract concepts are airy things with little connection to reality. My position is that that is only true of weak and poorly formed concepts. Well formed, accurate abstractions are firmly rooted in palpable rugged reality. And I believe that the universality of human rights is one of those solid and realiable abstractions. (And I use the word abstraction in the original Aristotelian sense, as something which is taken out from observable reality).
As I see it, rights are universal and implicit in human nature. If I fight for my rights, I fight for yours. It is logically inescapable, as my rights and yours are not merely identical, they are one and the same thing.
As it happens, the rights of unrelated people and peoples all over the world are threatened by the jihad and the sharia nuts. Banana farmers in Thailand, bush people in Sudan, socially liberal atheists in London, Hindus in Kashmir, random school-girls in Arabia and Chechnya, nearly anybody Jewish nearly anywhere, the list is enormous. And no mistake, all of all of their rights are at stake, starting with their most basic right -- to simply be alive.
I don't see much difference between defending Westminster Cathedral and defending the Bamyan Buddhas of Afghanistan. Personally of course, being a westerner means that Westminster will get priority in my view -- closer to home -- but it's a matter of degree, not of kind.
You do say that "It's about us having stuff, and about other people wanting to take our stuff away from us. It's that simple." I can hardly think of a simpler, plainer case of needing to defend one's rights -- assuming that that stuff is honestly come by.
The examples you cite of what mohammedans are seeking to do, i.e. "to say, rename whole sections of that country (as they are proposing to do in parts of London), dig up that country's graves and replace them with their own dead,erect giant mosques that destroy the London skyline, etc. ... rename its places, dig up its graves, destroy its artwork, push out its language" are not things that anybody has the right to do. Not as you state it anyway. And not as they clearly would prefer to do it, i.e. by force.
So, in defending universal human rights, I am not supporting their desire to do those things, as they are not rights to begin with.
But as you state the matter, it is hard to see a distinction in your comments between mohammedan vandalism, aggression and supremacism and the wholesale abdication of western culture by the western governing classes -- at every conceivable level. Which is really the source of the problem. In themselves, the mohammedans as a group are weak, productively impotent people (and I mean as a group, I am not damning individual mohammedans who might be fine). They could not possibly have gotten as far as they have under their own steam. I mean, these are people that can't even make their own cars!
And I have to say that the complicity and cowardice of the western governing groups has badly muddied the whole issue. If the UK gov't is going to pay mohammedans to lay about London sucking on the public teat, if the UK police are going to allow them no-go zones where they can commit violence at will, deface graveyards and generally do as they please, if the zoning boards are going to allow them to build mosques that tower over the traditional skyline, well ... then we've got a bigger problem than just destructive mohammedans. Our gov'ts are creating whole classes of people that have license far beyond their inborn rights.
That said, it's all about human rights and ideals -- particularly the glorious ideals that produced western civilization, and have been upheld by incalculably vast expense in blood and treasure.
Oddly however, your final comment is "we're defending our property, as is our just and manifest right to do so". So as I said to begin with, I'm really not sure if we're actually disagreeing at all.
Is freedom of association a universal human right? Do I have the right to keep Muslims out of my country, just because they're Muslims? Yes, I believe I have that right.
Post a Comment