The Libertarian Alliance Christmas (sermon): I did want to say something positive, but I can’t. Sorry.

David Davis

Well, this is Christmas, I guess, and time goes around and comes around, and it seems like five minutes ago that I wrote the LA’s first Christmas Message on this blog, six or seven years ago. I’m not sure that there’s much else new to say from that time, but the Chimpanzee Type-Writors in the Blog’s freezing, damp Nissen-Hut must at least pretend to keep up appearances.

On every day and in every way, our rulers (do we need such people, really?) conspire to push us further and further down the outfall-pipe. It’s actually very depressing to be alive in Britain in 2013, knowing that one was being born some number of decades before, in a country which, while less blessed with the planet’s offerings, was at least less unfree in most ways.

All I’d really like to say to Libertarians this Christmas is that I think we are running out of time. It’s slipping by us all fast and I don’t know when there might be another time. I’m certain I said it before, possibly last year and the year before that and the year before that: it’s quite fortunate that statistNazis are rather inefficient and take longer than they might, to do what they need to do. Even Enoch Powell said once: “be of good cheer: for the rot has set in, but it will take quite some time”. There are some choices now open to us, as follows:-

(1) We can continue to try to “influence debate”, by publishing, by some of us (not enough to make a difference) going about having eggs and turned-off-mikes thrown at us in universities and on radio stations and in “Conservative” gatherings and meetings and stuff like that. We can continue to do that thing. But I don’t think anyone that matters, or is on our side, is listening. The ones not on our side will simply delete the file they got sent for airing, or turn off the mike when we get too near the truth.

(2) We can espouse “activism”, but all this will do is get us imprisoned, possibly for ever for we are right, and out families broken up, our computers “taken into local authority-care”, and our children “seized for hard-drive analysis”. As a strategy, this will therefore avail other people nought. The trouble is that we have been shown time and time again that “activism” pays, since people like Nelson Mandela, Gerry Adams, the dead pigs Castro and Stalin, the other dead leftist pig Hitler (he got lucky while young) and Ho Chi Mhinh “got into government”. But I don’t think any living Libertarian conservatives are willing to pay the price or are even young enough to see it redeemed.

(3) Each of us can build an “armoured library”. How you all do this is entirely up to you. It needn’t even be armoured, so long as you didn’t tell policemen, who’d of course tip off scumbag mobsters to come and accidentally burn it as soon as it was convenient for (them).

Sorry to be so depressing this year. It’s no use getting excited that “over 145 people” got to see the lecture at (somewhere or other) by “Dr Human Hope”, the really really articulate and perspicacious founder of the “freedom free thingy”, at some place or other, and which several hundred Libertarians from at least “20” countries attended. Nor, even, that his lecture got “published on the internet.

Merry Christmas: the time has come to face reality. Nobody’s really interested enough in liberty – either for themselves or for others, and certainly not for others – for us to make a difference any more.

I’m not saying we should give up and die. Just that we must not expect victory, for we shall not get it.


  1. A refreshingly realist viewpoint. Too many groups overate their ability to effect change, and often foster a reckless sense of invulnerability.

    “Nobody’s really interested enough in liberty – either for themselves or for others, and certainly not for others – for us to make a difference any more.”

    Unfortunately, most people are amoral advantage seekers, unaware of the long-term ethical and practical ramifications of their short-term interests. Our leaders are no different, unless they can exercise the utmost intellectual restraint (which is extremely rare).

    All we can hope for is that when it all comes crashing down, a few grains of wisdom are absorbed into the sum total of human knowledge as the cycle repeats itself…

  2. A lot of this comes down to how you look at the half empty / half full glass. I think young people are very responsive to the libertarian message, despite what they may have been taught in school. The race between social power and state power, discussed by Albert Nock, continues at a growing pace. There can never be a final victory over tyranny in any case.

  3. I am just composing my suicide note. So far I’ve got, “I woke up feeling pretty good today, then I read David Davis’s Christmas Message and I’ve decided to end it all”.


  4. Good political news that happened in 2013.

    Well the American “Sequester” cuts in government spending actually happened – in 2012 I confidently predicted they were not happen (that some squalid deal would be done) and I was wrong.

    Of course for 2014 and 2015 a squalid deal to prevent real cuts in government spending (the Paul Ryan deal) has been done – but that does not alter the fact that the Sequester cuts did happen in 2013 (and I said they would not) and saved the economy in this year.

    Other than this…..

    Well a conservative President (not just on economic policy – he is also very un P.C. and no pawn of the “International Community”) has been elected President of Paraguay.

    Other than these two good news stories I can not think of any positive stories for liberty in 2013


    The Chinese regime says it is going to relax its one child policy for 2014 and going to get rid of the “Reeducation Through Labour” camps.

    Although it remains to be seen if this will mean anything more real than a name change.

  5. So much for 2013. Here are my predictions for this side of the pond:

    In the U.S., the midterm elections will sweep the drooling Democrats from Congress, so much so that the few remaining Democrats in the Senate and House will develop political claustrophobia and begin behaving in odd and uncharacteristic ways. The Republicans, however, while bedazzled by the majority handed them by the electorate, will remain clueless, and ask themselves “Why us?” and state, “It must be a Tea Party conspiracy!” and distance themselves further from liberty.

    Hillary Clinton will announce that she won’t run for president, because polls will show that no one is “Ready for Hillary” and isn’t prepared for Bill Clinton II. She will learn what a big difference it makes to have accomplished absolutely nothing. She will be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

    Barack Obama, undeterred by his plummeting popularity, will continue to exercise his unconstitutional executive powers in the face of a Republican-controlled Congress. Having emasculated the military and rendered the nation less able to defend itself, aside from putting 80% of the military on food stamps, he will hire the Salvation Army to hold umbrellas over him and foreign guests in the Rose Garden, and dismiss the Secret Service (“too costly”) and contract with a Mexican drug cartel to provide White House security in exchange for amnesty. He will play his 313th golf game at the Andrews Air Force Base course after the midterm elections. A former Obama caddy will publish a book, “Golfing with Goofy: Carrying Water for a Caitiff.” Obama will have the traitor investigated by the IRS, DHS, FBI, and TSA, and go on a book-signing tour for his new title, “Dreams of a Father: Five Years of Selfies and Selflessness.”

    Michelle Obama will launch her “Anexoria is Good for You” anti-obesity campaign. She will, however, be photographed in secret chowing down on a Kentucky Fried Chicken Family Super Bucket behind her asparagus plants in the White House vegetable garden, causing a major scandal. The hapless photographer will flee to Uruguay to escape her wrath and being taken into “protective custody.”

    In presidential primaries throughout the nation, Alfred E. Neuman and Daffy Duck will become the most popular write-in candidates, while straw polls will indicate a strong showing for Joe Biden-Justin Bieber ticket.
    Edward Cline, noted author and columnist, will be arrested for having thrown a very rotten egg at Barack Obama during the president’s appearance in Williamsburg, Virginia.

  6. It is without question a pessimistic time for many of us – not only those with some natural urges for freedom, but for those of us involved in other struggles for survival.

    I have come to share pessimism of David Davis for both of these fights.

    The two things I am concerned about are, in my view, linked – but I have said that before.

    You will all know of Robert Putnam’s study by now – and there was another major piece of research out last month which came to the same kinds of conclusions – where the more ‘diverse’ an area is, the less cohesive, mutually respectful and I suppose, by extension, less generally free it is.

    With libertarianism, I have always considered it as being dominated and sustained with European people. That is not to say others cannot and do not subscribe to it in an instinctive way, but that the occidental world and the populace that comprised it was in my view vital to it and somehow just more prone to it.

    This is one reason as to why I think it is tragic when I see some libertarians welcoming open borders to those who have no history of (and not much inclination towards) libertarianism – and who are, in fact, unwittingly creating dynamics which are at odds of having a minimal state – such as those aforementioned studies.

    When around 500,000 people from around the world have been arriving in this country per year (whether it be from India, China, Africa, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and indeed wider Europe), that is, in my view, not only the growth of a populace which is at odds to the survival of the indigenous people of the British Isles, but a growth of those who will not really tend to sway towards being libertarians.

    Some will, some won’t. More will not, I suspect.

    Sorry to be pessimistic, but how many strong “converts” to the Libertarian cause might there have been in the last, say, fifty years?

    I would suspect that is significantly less than 500,000 – and we have had roughly 12 years or so of such numbers coming here to Britain alone. If you were in the business of ‘recruiting’ for the cause, your efforts of maybe the last half century will have been snuffed out in 12 months.

    At the same time, many white middle classes have been vacating the building – because they are either not liking what is going on, or because they are just fed up of being squeezed by both Labour and the Conservatives as their primary cash-cow.

    Labour did it because they despise the middle classes – like many communists – because they are regarded as the upholders of some degree of self reliance, self sustainability, more stability of families and so on. All of which Labour seemed to hate and want to destroy in their time in office and what they will do all over again if ever back in the seats of power).

    The Conservatives seem to like to punish them because they are easier targets than their globalist chums in large corporations and in the banking institutions. The Kleptocracy.

    (As an example, the HMRC recently chickened out of pursuing £38 BILLION worth of ‘tax gaps’ from these people – and have been going in hard on small to medium sized business owners! £38 BILLION! – that is when they are not found to be funding both Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, laundering Billions worth of Mexican drug cartel money, or asset stripping perfectly viable companies in order to sell them off at a profit).

    In the meantime, the indigenous British public (in particular) seem oblivious. They have lost at least three major cities and large towns in terms of being an ethnic majority, with several more to join them by the end of the decade.

    The recent birth statistics in the newspapers, when studied by any demographer that knows the importance of age structure, shows that the country as we have known it for over a thousand years is already finished.

    People in general society seem to have no idea of the scale of change coming, no idea of the implications, no idea they are being financially raped in the process to such a large degree, and thus occupy their time watching EastEnders or talent shows – whenever they are not out with their knickers around their ankles getting legless after a good bout of consumerism called “Christmas”.

    However, it is sometimes surprising how many people there are who are fed up with the whole sorry state. I dismiss a lot of the population, but at various parties and social gatherings I am sometimes left amazed at how strongly some people feel about all of this – and are so relieved to be able to talk to somebody else about it in an open way.

    Perhaps the “grip” over society is largely one of perception? Maybe the iron wall we think is impenetrable is just a hollow paper illusion that is unstable and can be toppled over- if only we all got together and pushed at the same time?

    Or is that wishful thinking?….. Probably.

    Meanwhile, I hear that many comment sections of newspapers are going to clamping down on speech they do not like, the new internet thing by Cameron is already blocking more than just porn – as we all suspected it would, people have been detained for several hours in a police station for questioning over a joke they made about the death of Mandela, and hey, Britney Spears might have drawn on her recent “six-pack” for her raunchy come-back stage show……..

    I expect this kind of thing to continue for the foreseeable future, to be honest.

  7. Concerned Briton-

    With libertarianism, I have always considered it as being dominated and sustained with European people. That is not to say others cannot and do not subscribe to it in an instinctive way, but that the occidental world and the populace that comprised it was in my view vital to it and somehow just more prone to it.

    There is a tentative but I think rather compelling explanation for this “proneness”. It is that the peoples of the North Eurasian Circumpolar Region developed certain tendencies due to the environment in which they developed. Weak kinship groups and ethnocentricity and relative individualism. These are then represented in tendencies in social and political habits and structures. It basically comes down to living in ways which are (relatively) peaceful and tolerant of strangers; small families based on affectionate bonds rather than tribal ones interact by necessity mostly with strangers, and thus need and expect a “free and fair” society in order to function. There is thus, in this model, a cline of individualism and “libertarian type society” from the north west of Europe down to the Near East.

    If this has any validity, it would explain the rise of liberal thought in Europe. It would also make it somewhat important to ascertain whether these tendencies are purely cultural, or to some degree genetically transmitted. If the former, we might hope to convert newcomers to a liberal mindset; if not, we’re in trouble.

    • I think that you might be right there Ian. I also suspect that the pace and scale of what has been done to this country is very negative when it comes to even trying to cultivate our ancient ways and notions to newer arrivals.

      Personally, I do think it is (in part) genetic. Although it is unpopular and unfashionable to say it, I do believe that different peoples tend to have different traits.

      Some are good traits, some are bad traits, but I think peoples are different via their different evolutions – and when culture and faith is further added to that (particularly Islam, not wanting to lay all the blame at their door, but it is a prime example) it is not likely that the future growth of such demographics in this country will lend itself to fostering Libertarianism. They have their own ways and ambitions.

      Even with the rest, if Putnam and the other University research is correct, it does not, to me, foster the right ingredients for establishing a cohesive and mutually agreeable society – where we can all replicate the kinds of freedoms and notions we all used to take for granted.

      Although this is only my opinion, I think that whilst the past ages may well have been less ‘liberal’ in terms of expected societal norms (not ‘living in sin’, not being a single mother and so on) – I think we are less free as a society in general and that much of that “required” gripping by the state can be attributed to the chaos they are creating out there.

      Whilst I doubt many libertarians would want to think about the trends of who usually comprise a libertarian (and therefore think about the likely prospects of the future demographics carrying it strongly forward in the future), I think that it might need to be kept in mind, if only as a cautious consideration.

      The matter of conversion rates to libertarianism and that figure of new arrivals is perhaps more easily grappled with as a point to consider.

      I would not consider myself as fully Libertarian as most people here, but I do support a lot of things being said and I certainly loathe the nannying state and the the “GramscoNazis” (or whatever they are called here) for their meddling, the corruptions and their psychological manipulations.

      I don’t know how you can all increase your following and influence, much like I do not know how to do the same for other causes I am involved with, but I wish you all luck in having a more successful 2014.

      • Well, all this is part of the reason I’ve been fighting this half-hearted one man war attempting to stop people automatically saying that whatever good things we are are Judeao-Christian-Graeco-Roman and associate the positive parts of our culture with a native Europeanism. We really in my view need some kind of nativist pride, and the last way to get there is by saying we owe everything to a bunch of swarthy poofs in togas.

        NB the first meeting of the Not Judeao Christian Graeco Roman Society will be in the snug of The Queen’s Ferret, Northampton, on new year’s eve. Busty hotties who are anybody’s for a babycham are particularly welcome, since the theme for the evening will be: Western Europe, Land Of The Bawdy Wench.

  8. One good thing about Paraguay – due to intermarriage between those of Spanish ancestry and those of local ancestry, there are no racial problems. True Al Jazeera pretends that there is a racial division (on yes – the Islamic television station is interested in Latin America, as part of the alliance between Islam and the socialists) – but this is total nonsense.

    In reality the country in which there is a stark ethnic division is the country in which Al Jazeera is itself based, with its ultra wealthy Arab elite sitting on top of their oil and gas (not that they are the ones who either found the oil or gas or developed it) and their subject population from south Asia.

    The United Kingdom.

    If the “liberal” elite want an open door immigration policy – they must accept an end to such recent things as “free” public services, and “anti discrimination” regulations (as well an end to the various anti free speech policies).

    The “open door” immigration policies of the past are simply incompatible with the “positive rights” of modern times.

    And a final point.

    It was never the case that people could come into this land without being loyal to the Crown – being loyal to the Crown was a minimum condition to coming to stay.

    Errrr how can the followers of Mohammed be loyal to an “infidel” Queen?

    How can Muslims be loyal to any non Muslim nation (the world being divided into “the house of Islam” and “the house of war”) – a nation that has very often been at war with Islam?

    Of course these questions can not even be publically asked in the United Kingdom – even if one asks them too loudly one risks punishment.

    So the true answer to Concerned Briton is that there is a very little hope.

    For if one can not even freely discuss a matter (in the public square – not on obscure blogs) then there is no chance of coming up with solutions.

  9. Paul-

    Just to be awkward, I could point out that the same “loyalty argument” has been used previously regarding both Catholics and Jews…

  10. Blimey. Pass the paraquat. But before we do that, perhaps an appraisal may be called for of how reason and liberty live on, and how frankly it is imperative that they continue to do so.
    If it is not beneath us to do so, we could take a lesson from Saint Jack Charlton, one of Geordieland’s finest sons, and sometimes forgotten hero of 1966 who I had the pleasure of meeting at a dinner he spoke at in Newcastle a few years back. Jack, of course, spent his career in the shadow of his undoubtedly brilliant brother Bobby, but talking to him it is perfectly clear he didn’t mind at all. Because as a world class defender he knew his job and his worth.
    “I was never very good at playing football” he said, “but I was very good at stopping others playing football”.
    Apply your sense of Reason to that idea. The war on ignorance is a bit like the war on terror. It is undefined. It is multi factorial. It will be indeterminate, and it can seem a bit like fighting a Hydra at times; exactly as Jack understood, attacks on his goalmouth could and would come in a potentially bewildering variety of permutations. Tackling ideas and people in life just as on the field requires strength, clarity of purpose and, since it will involve conflict of some hue or other, a bit of backbone particularly if the antagonist is wont (as I’m sad to say most ignorant people will do) to try and substitute blowhard, anger and derision for an intelligent viewpoint. Defenders aren’t popular. They aren’t glamorous. But any team that tries to pretend they aren’t necessary will fail immediately. They never win matches. But they DO at the least stop their team from losing them. So it is with defenders of Reason, and just so, success shouldn’t be necessarily measured by the amount of freedom and reason won or even the mass popularity of the ideas championed. It can just as validly be measured by the amount of freedom it has stopped the ignorant and uncivilised from taking away.
    In that sense, the last 50 years have been a roaring success. I have not the slightest doubt that the UK and most of the civilised world would by now have been in the dustbin of history had it not been for this counterbalancing influence. Consider the 50s, 60s and 70s.
    Tyranny was on the march. It ruled a great deal of Europe and was hot for the rest. Those who trotted out arguments in favour of it were hailed as intellectual, usually by the braying shallow classes who trumpeted it more from an ingrained and intuitive habit of seeking the belittlement of others than anything else. It amounted to no more than the biggest, ugliest attempt to hobble the human spirit ever. And it failed. It wasn’t guns and bombs that brought it down. It was the collective awakening in the heads of millions of ordinary people that it was fundamentally anathema to all that makes a human being TRULY human. And it is THAT sleeping device within everyone that needs to be yelled awake. In more recent times the voice of Reason and clear thought has been the only counterclaim against that ridiculously Orwellian device “PC”. Newspeak by any other name. Orwell and Rand had it right. Control language and you control a great deal of what passes for the mind in the lives of most if humanity. It is only the voice of Reason and independent intellect that has railed against this, and has articulated the 2 questions that some folk lack the wit or will to, namely ‘Correct according to WHOSE politics, exactly?’ and ‘Why does what is politically correct not match what
    is FACTUALLY correct?’. Once those questions take root it is unmasked at a stroke for the manipulative rubbish it is. But people of Reason are the only ones to ask, and keep on asking them. Likewise fundamentalist religion is well and truly on the rise, hiding in one particular case acts of unspeakable brutality and ideas of monstrous ignorance behind a paper thin mask of ‘holiness’ as specious as it is backward. It is only Reason which dares to challenge and expose it. Here in Britain sovereignty, democracy and self determination have been subjected to a clear protracted attempt at little more than a takeover by stealth. The rise of suspicion towards it proves that many ordinary people, once given a prod and the clear picture, are more than capable of seeing through the spin and manipulation. Without the voice of Reason they wouldn’t be half as awake as quite a few of them are now.
    The voice of Reason might be atrophied, it might be ignored. But it shouldn’t ever just pack up and be quiet. Because its REAL success lies just as much in what it STOPS happening as what it causes to occur.
    So there.

  11. ChrisM. I like your response. I lived in one of those EU countries run by men in uniforms, back in the 60s and 70s, but I was a little girl back then.
    I just wonder, though, which fundamentalist religion you had in mind that you described it as ‘in one particular case’. What held you back from naming it?

    • Lack of time really. I wrote that screed on my mobile in a coffee shop before doing my first post Christmas workout. I’m sure you know the religion I was referring to. The one where their holy men sanction violence against democratic free thinking liberty respecting governments, and call for the unabashed attempted subjection of women, gays, Jews, non compliant unbelievers and anyone who happens to disagree with their way of doing things. I think it’s called Islam.

      • I’m pretty dismissive of all religion nowadays. I found the hard way that fundamentalist Christianity (the background I grew up in) has its own pitfalls, and has limited the lives of as many as it has saved from worse ways of life, but you don’t find the Pope or the local Bishop calling for fatwas now, do you!

      • Yes, Islam, a totalitarian ideology disguised in the vestments of a religion. Of all the religions I despise, Islam is at the top of the list. I’m taking notes for a new detective novel set in February 1930, in San Francisco (as a sequel to A Crimson Overture) that will focus on the Meccan Ka’aba, an Islamic holy site. It’s a cuboid structure, gussied up in a black silk skirt, one of several that have been destroyed, rebuilt, destroyed, and rebuilt, all by warring sects of Muslims. But it predates Mohammad by about 300 or more years. It used to house about 300 pagan Arabic deities. That being said, it occurred to me in the course of note-taking that the writers and makers of the Star Trek: Next Generation series either intentionally or by chance created the greatest nemesis of the series, the Borg, who fly around space conquering worlds and absorbing whole races and populations so that they can become Borg ciphers, in a cube. Just an observation. Make of it what you will. Out of habit, I have always referred to Muslims as “the Borg.” The cube association just now occurred to me.

  12. Ian – the loyalty argument (in history) in relation to Jews did not work. As the first Elizabeth would have pointed out – John Dee was a lot more loyal to her than a lot of Christians were.

    The Roman Catholic point is different.

    In the time of the First Elizabeth the Pope had indeed declared that the Queen should be violently overthrown.

    So it was NOT a matter of theology (“I seek not to make windows into the souls of men”) to ask “whom are you loyal to – Queen or Pope” when the Pope was asking for the violent overthrow of the Queen.

    I would have said (even this time last year) that this is a dead issue – but with the past and present comments of Pope Francis (on the Falkland islands as well as on “Social Justice”) it is possible that it may become a live issue again. I hope and pray that it does not.

    Islam is a fundamentally case.

    Jews are accused of making a “fetish” of the Holy Land (a bit of not wildly attractive real estate about the size of Wales), but Islam makes a “fetish” of the entire world.

    To the followers of Mohamed – all the world (including this island) must be brought under the control of Islam.

  13. Islam is indeed a fundamentally different case.

    And I do not see how this can change.

    When a Christian commits a terrible act (and many Christians have done terrible things – and many Jews have done terrible things also), he or she betrays the teaching of Jesus (or the teaching of the Talmud in the case of Jews).

    But when a Muslim does terrible things they can quite HONESTLY point to terrible things personally done or ordered by Mohammed himself.

    They are not betraying the teachings of Mohammed – they are following them.

    This is a fundamental problem – and I see no way of solving it.

  14. Ian B, re your anti-Judeao-watnot war, there’s an old dictum to the effect that all philosophy is a footnote to Plato. The idea being that P, as it were, laid the turf, and everyone else plays on it. I don’t read much philosophy nowadays, I much prefer Wodehouse (a powerful antidote to all pessimism, btw), but back when I did, I recall being struck by the truth of said dictum. It wasn’t necessarily that all philosophers since Plato agreed with him (obviously) just that they inevitably ended up engaging with philosophical problems the nature of which he had long since identified. And please don’t ask for examples, I’ve long since forgotten!

    Anyway, returning to your theory, it’s an interesting one: are we whiteys anthropologically, even genetically, hardwired for liberty? I don’t know, but I’d need more persuading that sans Plato we’d still have hadArAristotle, Aquinas, John of Salisbury, Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Smith A, Rousseau, Mill, et get.

    Happy to dispense with Plato, Hobbes and Rousseau, to say the least of it. Many years back I developed an acute loathing of all three. But my point is that there is a lineal intellectual descendancy at work here, and whilst you might say that absent Plato we would have had more and better Lockes, that’s an awfully big counterfactual claim.

    • Plato is history’s greatest philosopher for the reasons you cite.

      Without Plato there would be no Aristotle etc..

      Leonard Peikoff writes rather movingly on the Duel between Plato and Aristotle in the epilogue to “Objectivism the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.”

      I do not have a direct quote to hand but the gist is something like this-

      “There is only one fundamental issue in philosophy: the cognitive efficacy of man’s mind. The conflict of Aristotle versus Plato is the conflict of reason versus mysticism. It was Plato who formulated most of philosophy’s basic questions—and doubts. It was Aristotle who laid the foundation for most of the answers. Thereafter, the record of their duel is the record of man’s long struggle to deny and surrender or to uphold and assert the validity of his particular mode of consciousness.”

  15. Edward,

    I’m a bit busy so a short comment when I could write another novel about this 🙂 but the basic argument is not so much that we are hard-wired for liberty, as that we may be hard wired (in either a culturally transmitted, or genetic sense) for individualism. This is compatible in a more advanced society either with liberty, or with an oppressive tyranny of public safety, either of which are logical conclusions to the assumption that a society is a shared space in which individuals should be free to operate unmolested, regardless of e.g. kinship bonds.

    Just to briefly go on, if we accept this tentative hypothesis, we can see two major cultural challenges which have occurred- the first is the arrival of the Proto-Indo-European societal model which started around the 4th millennium BC and rolled westwards, and the second the Christianisation model, both derived from pastoralist cultures, which are kinship-bonded collectivist cultures and thus of a contrary nature to the hypothetical “Northern European model”.

    The first of those waves happened a very long time ago and was an immense cultural revolution. The archaeo-Feminists have IMV taken the hypothesis too far (Marija Gimbutas, the original proposer, included) by seeing in the record a pacifist matriarchy prior to the PIE arrival. But I think one can see in the evidence a significant change from, for instance, people who appear to have lived in undefended, relatively peaceful villages moving to hill forts and the like, as the “war of all against all” rolls in from the East. I am myself reluctant to engage in racial theories, it being a dangerous thing to do, but if something has survived this long, it might imply a genetic propensity to “snap back” towards individualist and egalitarian, “laws for all” societies easily which makes us Europeans what we are.

  16. I’ve just been trawling through some amendments to the law as part of a necessary evil known as CPD training for the year, and just came across a little amendment to the Public Order Act which I didn’t spot when it was tabled, but like the sound of the more I think about it. Taken together with a recent High Court decision about how magistrates should approach claims of an individual that they were ‘harassed alarmed or distressed’ I am happy to say this year is a definite upturn for the issue of robust free speech so I ll put it up here.
    First. The Act.
    As it previously stood, section 5 of the Public Order Act made it a crime whilst in public to utter threatening abusive or insulting words within the hearing of anyone likely to be caused harassment alarm or distress thereby. An aggravated form (punishable by imprisonment) made it likewise criminal to do so in circumstances of ‘racial aggravation’.
    The amendment is slight in form. It has merely deleted the word ‘Insulting’ from the offence.
    That is extremely good news for street debate. Previously, free speech has been very much the hostage of any hearer who could claim he had felt insulted by a remark made and was distressed by it. If it contained ANY remark particular to race etc the utterer was even potentially looking forward to a prison sentence for it, but this deletion has at a stroke removed the capacity of any grievance monger who is spoken to in a manner he or she finds ‘insulting’ to criminalise the utterer thereby. If the words or behaviour are threatening or abusive, and IF they are alarmed or harassed by it,(see below), that would still amount to an offence, and personally I see no problem in that. But from now on if someone happens to say something that another doesn’t want to hear or like the sound of, the other cannot criminalise them for saying it on grounds they feel it to be ‘an insult ‘ to whatever they feel it affronts. This can only be a good thing for robust honest debate.
    Likewise, a recent case highlighted the duty of a court to carefully examine a claim on the part of anyone claiming themselves to be a victim of such a calumny that they were in fact caused the distress they claim. That case involved the assertion of a long serving Police Officer that he was distressed by in effect being told to eff off by a cheeky kid. The High Court judgement in thinly minced terms told the good officer to grow a pair, and likewise told the local magistrates to use their own common sense in judging such a claim, which they dismissed out of hand.
    So. Last year engaging debate was a minefield for want of such spurious claims and the fear that one might be taken to have uttered something found to be ‘insulting’.
    This year it isn’t a crime under section 5 to make mere ‘insult’ to anything or anyone per se, so thankfully we will all just have to grow up and learn to take that as part of the tumult of public life; furthermore, any grievance monger who claims to be harassed alarmed or distressed by anything he has heard will NOT be guaranteed the kowtowing acceptance of the courts of the fact of his poor upset psyche.
    I’m quietly encouraged by that.

  17. There were philosophers before Plato – and Plato replies (sometimes not very well) to their points. So to say that philosophy is footnotes to Plato is incorrect.

    Are “white” (actually we are pinkish grey – not “white”) people “hard wired for liberty”? Errr no – as a glance at human history (or even out of the window at the decline of liberty in Britain from the 1870s onwards) would show.

    Racialism is tosh.

  18. It is not the colour of the skin pigmentation that makes a race Mr Marks – and I think you know that very well. Race is biological – in the DNA, not a “social construct” or otherwise none existent, par a shade or hue.

    Different peoples (when they are taken as a collective) are different in various ways and have different capacities for creating and sustaining societies that suit their own traits.

    However, I am not necessarily saying that some races are “better” than others, nor not necessarily worse, just prone, on the whole, to be different and have tended to have built ways and societies suited to their traits and circumstances.

    This is particularly notable at extremes between the Jewish peoples and some parts of the Sub Saharan African peoples.

    When one has an IQ of above 100 and the other has an IQ more in the region of 80, to be generous, the kinds of influences, positions, civilisations, societies, cultures, achievements, and very essences are going to be different.

    It is not a matter of “circumstance” or mere “culture” – it is a matter of innate being, for a people make a culture, a culture does not make a people. If Africans took over Israel and the Jewish diaspora, to suggest it would stay the same aside from a different hue of skin pigmentation is absurd.

    Race is not the sole descriptor, however, when such innate traits are coupled with culture, faiths and natural in-group and out-group realities of life, it can get magnified and hard to discern where some things stop and some things start.

    This is particularly true in what we now have – “Multiracial” societies. This can blind people to what conditions may be like in generations to come.

    I do not think it would ever have been a problem to take in and absorb some different peoples, over hundreds, nay thousands of years. Our traits would have passed on, our culture and norms conformed to, it would have been still a majority of ourselves and the rest would have become as us in all ways.

    But this is not what we are seeing today, nor what is enveloping the future.

    It is hardly far-fetched or wicked to contemplate that the European peoples have created and sustained ways of life (and ideological theories) which they were more naturally inclined towards, via their very development as peoples.

    To throw the matter of race away because people find it uncomfortable to think about, deal with or contemplate is pretty short-sighted in my opinion.

    I am not saying it is everything, but neither am I saying it is nothing, and if it not nothing, then that little something ought to be considered as part of the whole picture.

    When a nation like ours was pretty much racially, religiously and culturally homogeneous and when it has been a natural development of our own making for a thousand years since the time of Bede…..

    ….When it has been built up and bolstered along the way with the cultures and influences of peoples extremely similar to us from North Western Europe who also shared those traits, who never amounted to more than 1% of our demographic at any given time anyway…..

    When we are, in the last 64 years, becoming an ethnic minority in three major cities and some major towns and have at times been accepting somewhere in the region of 500,000 people a year of different races and different religions and cultures, thus altering the very fabric and continuance of our nation and our people…..

    ….To then imply that this racial shift is not going to affect the future of Libertarianism and the VERY essence from which it sprung (and from which it was made possible to function) is something I find to be absurd, no matter how well intentioned it may be to want to ignore it.

    When it comes to race itself, rather than it being “tosh”, the idea that different races of peoples – who have developed in isolation from each other for tens of thousands of years – are all equal in all the same ways and all have the same traits and same capacities, same brains and only their “skin tone” and facial features are different is the *real* tosh without any foundation.

    It is like being a ‘creationist’ that believes God made all the people of the world exactly the same. Creationists get laughed at and receive a hard time from liberals, but they too, in their blind concepts of equality, must believe in the same kind of creationist theory that believes that there is no evolution.

    In my view, what is going on out there in the country (albeit relatively passive for the moment) is not conducive for the establishment of libertarian goals – whether it be the sheer imposition of multiracial/multicultural societies (on which numerous studies show it degrades the basis for societal well being), whether it be in terms of traits or cultural values or faiths, or whether it is the “state” who has to impose thousands of pieces of legislation aimed at keeping the “lid” upon their unnatural experimentations that have disrupted and transformed the very essence of this country.

    Libertarians who remove race entirely from their world view are dismissing all of this, as well as ignoring that the peoples crowding our shores often have powerful ethnic ties (unlike our more individualistic selves) and that they are typically organised in well-funded, aggressive ethnic organisations that often look out for their own groups interests over and above the individual rights of others.

    They often have a vital interest in a strong central government in order to further their interests in a wide range of areas, from welfare benefits to foreign policy. They can (and currently do) act far more as a corporate entity than as a set of isolated individuals.

    Further, the basis of much libertarian thought on all this ignores the reality of proven racial and ethnic differences in a broad spectrum of traits critical to success in contemporary societies, particularly IQ, criminality, and impulsive tendencies.

    This is one reason why I am sometimes at odds with some aspects of libertarianism, because through the ignoring of all these things, it seems to be a utopian philosophy based on what “ought to be” rather than on a sober understanding of the way humans actually behave.

    I don’t think there can be a perfect libertarian society, much like there cannot be a perfect “any” form of society. All we can do is try and keep the worst forms of tyranny at bay and, in my view, try and not sow the ingredients that are an antithesis for this aim.

    The libertarian idea that we should alter government – as if the governed are an atomistic universe of individuals – is oblivious to the fact that a great many people will continue to behave on the basis of their group identity, whether based on ethnicity or on a voluntary association like a corporation.

    This is one reason why I laugh at some of the American article contributors who are advocates of open borders, where they assume, like some UFO or teleportation device, people can be sucked up from the Sudan, Egypt or China, then dropped off in the suburbs of Manchester and become good little libertarians if only their property rights were not violated and that they did not threaten violence to others.

    It is cloud-cuckoo land and flies in the face of all the evidence and history all around the world.

    Different races, cultures and religions within the same nation state will continue to engage in networking (often with co-ethnics) and they will pursue policies aimed at advancing their self-interest as conditioned by group membership.

    In my view, individualism is an ethnic trait of Europeans – the only group to have invented and sustained workable individualistic societies.

    European family patterns indicate that Europeans, far more than other groups, have been able to free themselves from clan-based social structure (a form of collectivism) and develop societies with a high level of public trust needed to create modern economies, where values such as individualism, the rule of law, and limited government are often taken for granted.

    In the kind of country this is going to become – at the hands of the speed and rate of demographic change already in the maternity units of our hospitals across the land (coupled with our 25% drop of indigenous demographic every generation thanks to our 1.5 T.F.R reproduction rate) – I think that completely ignoring (or glibly brushing aside) the implications of race and society as “tosh” is perilous.

    Maybe it is true that a natural inclination towards liberty and libertarianism is minimal within us and that we are more viable for change than I think……

    …..but when the conditions which have – or had – fostered individualism, rule of law and limited government are being usurped….

    ……and when the indigenous English ARE, without any question, now going to be seeing themselves as an ethnic minority within their own homeland within the next 30 years….

    …….Well, I would not be surprised to find that libertarianism will find it hard to find a follow-ship along this path from here on in – even amongst we “pinkish grey” folk – who will, by then, in all likelihood, have no options to be also fighting for our own ‘collective’ interests as a minority group.

    Hey, but why worry about such things eh Mr Marks, for I guess it is only for dumb “racialists” like myself, people who are talking “tosh” and who have no basis for their thoughts and concerns…….

  19. Apologies, as upon re-reading that, I think I got a little bit carried away there. (I tend to be like that at times, when ‘get going’ on some things!).

    It is all meant in a bit of a jousting spirit and an explanatory way in order to express what is behind a somewhat heretical a point of view.

    It was not meant to sound personal to whoever may be on the receiving end at any given time. I recognise that I can sometimes take a ball and run with it beyond what may have actually been suggested or said.

    Have a good New Year one and all. I also hope things look up for the future on the more general libertarian front.

  20. Concerned Briton it is precisely “skin pigmentation” that IS biological.

    The stuff you are talking about, such as resistance to “clan based politics”, is NOT biological. It is CULTURAL and INTELLECTUAL.

    Were the Scots in the 18th century not “white” or “Nordic” or whatever?

    Were not the Hatfields and McCoys in the United States in the 19th century?

    Are such families as the Bushes (from Essex originally) not important, as a family, to this day?

    There IS such a thing as race and it includes stuff such as skin colour – it does NOT include stuff such as politics. Otherwise such States as Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire (all “lily white”) would have been swept by McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 (they were not).

    Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Star Parker (and on and on) are free market folk – Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler (and so on) are not.

    And it is naught to do with the latter people being white. Although YES the strong conservative movement among American blacks (Republicans used to get most black votes, half as late as 1960, and there were many strongly conservative black newspapers in Philadelphia and so on) was largely destroyed in the 1960s.

    But it was not destroyed by some sort of “genetic” mutation American blacks – it was a cultural change (I would say a cultural collapse) created by the “victim” ideology of the modern (not the old) “Civil Rights” movement and the Great Society Welfare Programs – which Marxists (such as Francis Fox Piven – of “Cloward and Piven”) pushed and pushed.

    Take the example of the Rev. J. Wright (Barack Obama’s minister in Chicago) the man is a Marxist and a semi lunatic.

    But his father was not like that, the father of J. Wright was a respectable minister in Philadelphia – and the son seems to be have been fine as a young man (serving honourably in the U.S. Navy and so on).

    What happened to J. Wright?

    Was there some sort of radical mutation in his DNA?


  21. Of course the special target of Marxist groups such as the “Black Panthers” (so beloved by Mr Holder at the “Justice” Department) were BLACK businessmen.

    They understood that to achieve their vision of a radically alienated black population traditional community leaders and role models had to be destroyed – that was one of the major things the “culture war” of the 1960s (which is still carrying on today was about. The present terrible state of American blacks (90% Democrat voting, welfare dependent, born out of wedlock, desperately criminal) is a CULTURAL not a genetic condition (if it is genetic why did they not use to be like this – was there some radical mutation in their DNA in the 1960s?).

    Who is more hated in American culture than a white conservative? A BLACK conservative is. They get it far worse – and from black and WHITE American Marxists (sorry “Progressives”). Because they are seen (in Frankfurt School terms) as a direct threat – just as conservative WOMEN leaders are, that is why people such as Sarah Palin are targeted with special viciousness – because they are seen as a direct threat to Frankfurt School “victim group” ideology.

    But more on race.

    Who was the leading National Socialist racial ideologist?

    Alfred Rosenberg was.

    By any normal definition Mr Rosenberg was NOT a German;

    He was born and brought up in Estonia – and his father was of Baltic origin on BOTH sides. His mother was partly French.

    Yet this man set himself up as the ultimate arbiter of who was a German.

    Concerned Briton can you not see what an absurd position this was for Alfred Rosenberg to take?

    And what of Adolf Hitler himself ?

    A man with coal black hair who subscribed to a magazine called “Blond Rights” (????????).

    Also a pathetic physical specimen – my father (Harry Marks visited Germany in the inter war period) could have broken his neck with one hand.

    This Hitler bloke is the Nordic “Superman”?

    There is nothing in the pig swill of German racial philosophy, in the ravings of Herder and Fichte, for a loyal subject of Queen Elizabeth II.

    A loyal Britain should stick to political thinkers such a M.J. Oakeshott (who torn apart both German National Socialism and Italian Fascism. along with Marxism, in his little book on the ideologies of modern Europe before the war) and Edmund Burke.

    Remember it was Edmund Burke who said (in relation to the Indians – writing to a lady who defended the abuses in India) that they have “none of your lilies and roses in their faces – but they are created in the image of God just as much as you are”.

  22. I am suggesting that some traits may in part be EVOLUTIONARY within a separated populace of thousands of years – and are thus going to be MORE COMMON within that grouping – not that other races CANNOT ever share those traits or implying that via “skin colour” we would therefore all vote the same!

    It is not a valid response. Nor is it really valid to point to a few non-White conservative “free market” folk like Thomas Sowell and suggest, by doing so, that they are equally the norm and not just the exception.

    I have explained my point of why I think multiracialism is a threat to libertarianism being established and why different races, when taken as a whole, have scientifically PROVEN different traits in their very essence in all sorts of other ways and why it would be foolish to believe that “under the skin we are all the same”.

    (Do I really have to start proving that brains work a little different, that rates of developing different illnesses are different, that IQ is different, that impulsiveness is different, rates of psychosis like paranoia and schizophrenia is different?!)

    In addition to this, I have explained why I think immigration and “free movement of people” is a poor prospect for securing libertarianism in the future.

    You choose to ignore all of that in order to try and press home the usual narrative we have in society about the irrelevancy of group dynamics, of race, the impacts of different peoples and the civilisations they tend to build and the ultimate impacts of differing groups sharing the same territories.

    Of course, in small amounts there are exceptions to the rules. Of course, some “white” people have low IQs and Sub Saharan Africans have much higher IQs than them. Some Black people or Chinese people may be far more inclined to liberty and freedom, or libertarianism, than some English bloke down the road!

    But that is not the point I am arguing!

    It is therefore betting clear to me that you have no real concept of what is even being discussed, so I suspect that further commentary with you on this is going to be pointless.

  23. Sorry Paul, I seemed to have jumped in when you were actually writing another response.

    However, now that it is above, I shall deal with some of it quickly.

    I share your positions on the School of Frankfurt, the ideologies of Marx and the aspects which are at play there. (I also, as it happens, share the view you take on Islamic incompatibility to Libertarian efforts).

    However, you cite above that:

    …..”The present terrible state of American blacks ({….} welfare dependent, born out of wedlock, desperately criminal) is a CULTURAL not a genetic condition {…} if it is genetic why did they not use to be like this?”

    Wrong. It is more than cultural. It is also tied to genetics.

    Tell me, for example, why is it, after over 60 YEARS (!!) worth of the American educational boards and Governments, who have spent BILLIONS to “close the gaps” on education and prospects for Blacks, have been a complete and utter failure, that the gap rates between the two groups are almost EXACTLY the same as they were 60 years ago?

    And if it was “prejudice” and “bigotry”, or overall “Marxism” or whatever destroying the education system (of which I actually subscribe your point of), why do we see Orientals, Jews, Indians and others score good test scores, with the white students often coming behind them?

    Are they somehow more genetically averse from the programme being waged?

    Why is it still carrying on within Black run schools, universities, which are populated by Black staff, or indeed, ultra liberal staff like most academia these days?

    Why are many, if not all, Black nation states a catastrophe? Why is it more often than not that cities in successful nations which have become saturated with Blacks become a failure, no matter where they are in the world?

    Do Black people go to poor and crime filled cities first, or do cities ultimately become poor and crime filled after they have become to a large degree Black? I think the latter.

    It is a complex issue. It is partly down to race and genetics, whether it be IQ, impulsiveness and higher testosterone – leading to violence, “act now, think later” crimes and policies, and so on. Have sex now, deal with the possibility of a child later. Rob this victim now, deal with being caught later…..

    This ties in to fatherless homes, tendencies to form gangs, which again, in turn, as a combination of all this, leads to violence and deaths – which is precisely why the vast proportion of gun crimes and gun victims in the United States (and here!) are Black – not the “yee-haaa!” ‘Rednecks’ the anti-gun lobbyists and liberals like people to imagine.

    But of course, it is also down to culture, group dynamics (where for example 90% of Blacks voted for Obama regardless of political affiliations because they thought he would be good for Blacks like themselves and wanted to see one of “their own” in the big seat!), and the general problems of multiracial societies that means that yes, not everybody will be happy and embracing of them.

    There are going to be highly succesfull Blacks, Blacks who attain a good education and are smarter than I could ever be. There are going to be ones who careful planners, responsible citizens, hold down great jobs or even crummy jobs and are far away from the stereotypes we can see as a whole in some of these large American cities.

    But it is silly, in my opinion, to lay it all on the fault of either Whites, Liberals, Marxism, racism, slavery legacies, or whatever else crops up as the usual excuses.

    When it comes to somebody non German determining what a ethnic German was, I hardly think that is reason to dismiss what was being said.

    It would not prove that the German people did not exist or have a right to their identity, nor would it really mean that, all other things considered, that some people who are not ethnically German are not ideologically or otherwise incompatible with whatever the politics of the day was for Germany and the interests of the German people.

    (Nor do I really subscribe to the commonly held view that Adolph was plotting some “pure master race” of “blondes” to take over the world and kill all the Jews, polish off the British and goose-step down the streets of London, but that is another matter.)

    (It is also ironical that it is the Jewish state of Israel that has been floating policies of DNA tests in recent years in regards to who gets to live there from the Soviet Union and elsewhere – see http://www.timesofisrael.com/russian-speakers-who-want-to-immigrate-could-need-dna-test/).

    With the Latvian/Estonian/French conundrum of how could he have had the right to determine the German peoples…. if my father, or cousin, was a drug addict – does that mean to say that they, or I, can therefore not come out with anti-drug messages, know about drug chemicals, or have insights as to what it is (and what it is not) all about?

    You don’t have to be of something to state a truth on it, nor do you have to have experienced something to know the rights and wrongs of it.

    Nor, for that matter, do I believe that any kind of talk of race or the things I have been discussing here on this comment section have anything to do with Adolph Hitler, other than what people like to throw into to the conversation in order to make considered considerations look somehow beyond the pale or invalid.

    I believe there is some logic to what I stated in my posts above, regarding the future of this country and libertarianism. Race in terms of nature was a small part of it, along other things which piggy back onto it within a nation state.

    It is the dynamic as a whole I am trying to convey, and not that there is a blanket definition of who may and who may not be libertarian or whatever in their outlooks.

  24. Just a brief comment here.

    The question of how much of behaviour is nurture and how much is nature has been fiercely contested and remains undecided. The Left for the past century have strongly preferred behaviouralism (“nurture”) to enable the blaming of society for failure, and indeed for success (hence, society can expropriate the successful, since their gains are the result of society, etc). The point here is that if one accepts some input of nature- and I think most people realistically do- then it is hard to argue that in peoples who have been sufficiently reproductively isolated to achieve physical distinctiveness- and bear in mind that there are distinct populations within “races” of course- that evolution cannot have acted upon personality, intelligence, etc.

    But we can’t just demand that that not be true for ideological reasons. That’s what the Left do. As a libertarian, I sincerely wish that mankind is an identikit mass in terms of capabilities and temperament. But if we are not, and there is cautious reason to think we are not, then that is a challenge libertarians must address, rather than just pretending it doesn’t exist.

    And on a more immediate level, it would help explain why the previously relatively liberal west is being sucked into the illiberal society we currently are, under a false flag of liberalism.

  25. The transformation of things like the unemployment rate (which used to be LOWER for young male blacks than young male whites), welfare dependency. births out of wedlock, and so on can not be explained by some genetic mutation in the black population.

    On the contrary it is “compassionate” government (and the “compassionate” intellectual classes in the media and so on) that has caused this transformation – the only question is, was it accidental or deliberate?

    With people such as Francis Fox Piven (and so many of the “intellectuals”) it was quite deliberate.

    If you doubt the transformative powers of government (for the worse – not the better) their ability to turn gold into lead – then observe the following……

    All the transformations that happened decades ago to the black population (the “test subjects” if the diabolical experiment) are now happening to the white population.

    Births out of wedlock, youth unemployment, welfare dependency……..

    And educational collapse?

    Oh yes – that will come also. And the many billions of Dollars spent on “Progressive” education methods will have exactly that result – whether deliberately or accidentally.

    By the way…….

    I do not dispute that their may be some genetic component to certain forms of intelligence – for example east Asians appear to have (on average) a slightly better aptitude for mathematics than Europeans do.

    But the important word there is “slight” – if taught properly Europeans can add up and so on and “I can not do mathematics – because I am white” is as stupid as “I will never be able to read – because I am black”. Traditionally taught black children have a BETTER standard of reading (and so on) than “Progressively” taught white children (although, yes, “Progressive” education may be particularly lethal for black children).

    Slight genetic differences in average aptitude BETWEEN groups are dwarfed by genetic differences in aptitude WITHIN groups. The intelligence gap between someone such as Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell and the average white person is VAST – and not in the favour of the average white person.

    And all the innate ability in the world is wasted in a “Progressive” environment (such as a modern American big city school – where even a genius would be likely to leave illiterate).

    And to apply race to politics is absurd – simply absurd.

    I remind you that American blacks had a CONSERVATIVE voting record only a couple of generations ago.

    Biological evolution simply does not work that fast.

    It is simply false to try and explain the transformation (for example the political transformation) of American blacks in cities such as Philadelphia in terms of biological evolution – there simply has not been enough time since the 1940s (when blacks in such places were known for their conservatism).

    CULTURAL evolution (on the other hand) works much faster…….

    Especially when a group of very intelligent (and very evil) people have been hard at work.

    By the way the leaders of this group were mostly white.

    Turning to other matters……..

    Watching the Vienna Phil (a recording of the New Year’s Day Concert).

    That crushing bore (always going on about peace in the Middle East – you could not ever create peace in Argentina my dear chap….) Daniel B is conducting – yet again.

    Every other man in the place is wearing a tie – apart from him.

    Not enough money for a tie Danny? Want me to buy you one?

    Or are you being a “rebel” again? Yawn.

    And let no one give me the “medical condition” stuff.

    I am a severe asthmatic – I have been near death several times (and I will meet her soon enough).

    And I always wear a tie for formal occasions.

    The Vienna Phil should do something really radical……..

    Get Andre R. (the Dutchman) in to conduct.

    The snobs would all die of strokes.

    They would not accept a “commercial showman” to conduct.

    That would be too much like the original Strauss family…….

  26. Paul, nobody’s suggesting that blacks or anyone else have evolved in a couple of generations. And also, I’ve above said that I am myself entirely undecided about how much we’re talking about genetics, and how much about what we may call “persistent culture”.

    Let’s use an amusing example. Black african sexuality is strongly focussed on womens’ buttocks as desirable. (Years ago, I did lights for a “Miss Africa Contest” and the whole evening basically consisted of young women waving their bottoms at the audience, heh). American blacks were taken from their homelands, forced into white protestant christian civilisation, and thoroughly westernised. Nonetheless, modern african-americans are still obsessed with “ass” as you can see from any of their music videos etc (and which we see white performers now desperately copying, hence the Miley Cyrus Twerking-gate).

    Now that probably isn’t genetic. But it does indicate that “peoples” or “races” or whatever you want to call them can have deeply persistent cultural ways.

    So here’s something interesting following on from that. African polygamy is different to, say, Near Eastern polygamy. It is a “loose” model. Multiple wives live in their own homes with their children. The wives mostly provision themselves, by gardening. The husbands do little provisioning, and spend their time competing for status, going on raids, being warriors etc, and acquiring bling to acquire more wives, and visit the multiple wives on a sort of rotation basis.

    It’s hard not to see a remarkable similarity to the ghetto black culture that arose pretty much as soon as the cultural pressure to practise European-style monagamy, exerted by hegemonic whites, religion, etc, lifted. It may be coincidence. But it is surely worth asking if it is coincidence, or something more deep rooted.

  27. @Concerned Briton. I share your concern. I live in East London and I feel uneasy and alienated in a city which is no longer British, never mind English. It’s unsettling to walk down the high street and notice that, as a white person, I am in a minority, although a significant one: but Eastern Europeans make up most of that white minority in which I count myself. I want to move, but I suspect that a similar scenario awaits the rest of England: it’s just a matter of time, and not a very long time at that.
    You mention IQ as s factor in shaping the achievements, or lack thereof, of different human groups and ethnicities. You also mention our 1.5 T.F.R reproduction rate. But how useful is a high IQ, when it doesn’t guarantee the survival of a population in its own land, or at least the land that has been theirs for a few thousand years? (I am talking about western Europe here, not just Britain).
    You also mention creationism and evolution and write that ‘Creationists get laughed at and receive a hard time from liberals, but they too … must believe in the same kind of creationist theory that believes that there is no evolution.’ But if you believe in evolution, like I do, what do you make of our failure to reproduce and replace ourselves. Add to that our apparent willingness to accept radically different people among us, so long as we can get a cheap plumber or a carer to wipe that a** of our ancient and incontinent parents.
    I apologise if this sounds crude: I really do not mean to cause offense. But I am struggling with these concepts. Could there be something in the nature of human civilizations that prevents infinite improvement. There are plenty of examples in history where more advanced civilizations were overthrown and replaced by ‘barbarians’. Could this be our turn? If so what to do about it?

    • I think the problem is that there are a lot of complex issues working together, things which have a detrimental effect on our population’s capacity to sustain itself and perpetuate itself.

      Take for example a higher IQ than some others, which has influence on all sorts of aspects of life.

      Although ‘education’ is not the same thing as IQ or intelligence, I think it is true to say that the more educated a populace is, generally speaking, the fewer children they tend to have.

      There are different states of play in different lands, but for our own people I suspect many are finding meaning to their lives in other ways, ‘finding themselves’, just being a little more selfish and consumer driven, or just being more “careful” about their choices of partners and more “careful” about the “right time” to have children.

      This, it seems, is not so much a concern to others in our midst, who take little care about these things and who, especially in the the case of Muslims, enjoy having large families and use ‘fecundity’ as a tool to build power and influence over others.

      But it happens also with Somalians and various groups with high TFR rates, as they know that they can continue to have children they cannot really afford because somebody else, via the welfare system, will pick up the tab.

      There are indigenous British people who do this, but it is not as widespread, particularly in the higher IQ bracket you talk about.

      This tragically means that whilst the indigenous people are being responsible, going to work, having careers, planning their families around what they can afford and where they can live, we are paying taxes to fund the ability of our replacements to reproduce and have the families we cannot ourselves afford to have. It is a catastrophe.

      In general though, across all types of our indigenous people, economic situations have developed – (or have purposefully been developed, depending on how you may look at it) – so that both a husband and a wife need to go to work in order to keep up with payments and taxes.

      What was once the role of one parent to be a ‘breadwinner’ now takes two, and naturally, the tax men, international finance groups, consumer reliant groups are pleased as punch about this. Double the workforce, double the tax being paid, double the need for cars, etc.

      The state is also now in the position of moulding children from cradle to adulthood – as parents now leave their children at the mercy of others (and the state) to bring up and teach (nursery, schooling) whilst they are out trying to make ends meet.

      So, throw in the costs of childcare, the busy lives now required to cope, a feminist culture that expects women to have it all as well as a high flying career, the high costs of getting on the housing ladder to have a home suitable for raising a family in, lack of social housing and wider housing stocks (for reasons that should be obvious) and……well, we are on the decline.

      Although some here might baulk at this statement, a pattern in nature is also true that, with any animals, once their territory has been invaded by other species or transformed away from comfort and familiarity, the reproduction rates plummet. I see no reason as to why humans, on a subconscious level, would be any different.

      Demographics have always ebbed and flowed. There are various boom periods and then lulls, on a repeat cycle.

      I would not even be all that concerned about a drop in our numbers as part of this natural cycle, except for the fact that other peoples are now here and rapidly increasing, meaning that we are going to go the way of the dodo.

      For example, we Europeans bounced back after something like 60% of European people were wiped out by the Black Death. We survived mass devastation of numbers, as we were able to re-grow with our own people in our own spaces. What we cannot survive though, as a people, is being supplanted in our own lands.

      With the conditions we are now living in, with the state the way it is, with the welfare system and all the rest of it, a high IQ is indeed no help to be “successful” – because “successful” means different things to different people at different times.

      What I mean is, the very nature of mankind itself is to reproduce itself. Even amoebas know this and work to this goal. Taken at a rudimentary level, with the conditions we have had, the other ethnicities are being “more successful” at this than we are.

      We are measuring success in terms of technical advancement, luxury items, etc, whereas the real success in life is expanding your genetic type and thriving, creating a future for your kind and your ways.

      When it comes to accepting others, well, I don’t think we would have ever accepted others if we had originally been given the option. Nobody asked for mass immigration of others. Nobody asked for the Nationality Act of 1948 that gave citizenship to the commonwealth.

      Nobody asked for the mill workers in the 1960s, only failing mill industry bosses and the government seeking to blow a last gasp of air into the collapse. Nobody voted for family reunification policies for these people to bring over vast parts Pakistan with them.

      Nobody asked for the 4Million or so that Blair and Brown brought in, nobody asked for the Poles or the Roma or Romanians and Bulgarians.

      People have had no other option than to just get on with it – and in the meantime, sophisticated propaganda and conditioning has been used to promote egalitarianism and a sense of self loathing in our people which renders them unwilling to think about the future of their own people and their own peoples interests.

      As said earlier in the thread, despite what is claimed by some of the usual suspects on the opposition to myself, the “white” race is not as “ethnocentric” as other races and ethnic groups. In fact, in a study a few years ago, we were found to be one of the least “racist” and ethnocentric peoples on Earth. You would not have seen that on the BBC though, that is for sure.

      We have generally been more individualistic, compassionate to others, self sacrificing, self debasing – and it has been helped along the way with a good dose of ‘white guilt’, which I feel has had a terrible detrimental effect on our pride and our desires to perpetuate our own kind.

      When you are told over and over again as a society that your race is wicked, evil, the ones that slaved, robbed, which is the most racist, the most responsible for world problems, the most greedy and using all the resources…..I would not find it surprising to learn that it has a psychological effect that leads people to not want to continue living as a civilisation.

      I think the Marxist driven destruction of our societies has created a situation where we are at risk of being on a plunge into the history books as a once lived people.

      We are not the people we once were. I think standards of all kinds have dropped, whether it be law and order, education, capacity for self sustainability, self reliance, etc.

      I think that we have become more enslaved to an unnatural kind of societal construct, become more selfish, more individualistic, more hedonistic for the “here and now”.

      Celebrity distractions, football, talent shows, consumer goods etc are blinding people to the essential ways of nature and survival, the importance of what is being done in their name as a people by the government…..where as long as they are fed, watered, looked after, they will let almost anything happen and not give a care about anything but the immediate here and now.

      This is why many people can support the importation of cheap labour to staff old folks homes, employ their slightly cheaper plumbers from Eastern Europe, or whatever. As long as they are okay, to hell with everything and everybody else.

      Of course, it need not be a choice of one thing or the other, it should not be essential or required to import half the world to get a cheaper plumber or find elderly care – but I think it has been designed to be this way as part of globalism and the desires of some communistic “one people, no borders, no identities” goals.

      There are indeed plenty of examples where advanced civilisations have fallen to barbarians. I think we are at risk of being another one.

      The difference with our situation is that I think it is not really of our own making – it has been waged upon us, whether it be via the Frankfurt School, global finance, or whatever else by the ruling elites.

      What is happening is an unnatural phenomena and unprecedented in history – that a people, under these conditions created, are now wilfully doing away with themselves.

      It is the same in Germany and elsewhere, which is probably why an author over there had a very popular book citing that “Germany is abolishing itself” or “Germany is doing away with itself”.

  28. I repeat what I have already said.

    American blacks (and yes I mean young male blacks) used to have a lower (not higher) rate of unemployment than whites – as recently as the late 1940s.

    Things such as out-of-wedlock births and welfare dependence were once lower among American blacks than they are NOW among American whites. Just as church attendance among American blacks was once (not so long ago) higher than it is NOW among American whites.

    And. only a couple of generations ago, American blacks had a conservative voting record – even as late as 1960 about half of the vote.

    Conservative and libertarian writers (such as I. Paterson – a white lady) wrote for conservative black newspapers in Philadelphia and so on.

    Looking at the majority of American blacks now and assuming they have always been like this (90% Democrat voting, welfare dependent, desperately criminal…..) is as absurd as saying of the Germans of the 1930s and early 1940s “they are innately collectivist and aggressive – they have no moral core, it is in their DNA you know……”

    Once the Germans had been known as people of poets and composers – not camp guards and murderers. And it was NOT a genetic change.

    The change between Rev. J. Wright (Barack Obama’s “Liberation Theology” government-owes-us minister in Chicago) and his father (a conservative Christian minister in Philadelphia) is not a matter of genetic mutation.

    Or, Ian B., do you really believe that someone like the older Rev. Wright (now dead) went around talking about the “asses” of women?


    The Germans of the 1930s and early 1940s were not innately evil – it was not in their DNA.

    In fact it is very dangerous (as well as silly) to think like this – as it gives rise to complacency.

    “The English have an innate belief in liberty – voluntary cooperation and resistance to tyranny is their DNA”.

    Tosh – absolute tosh.

    The “English” (like everyone else) have no “innate” genetic beliefs or customs.

    Liberty (and the culture of civil, voluntary, order it is based upon) most be worked for in each generation.

    All cultural foundations can be destroyed (made as if they had never been) in a single generation.

    The left have know this since at least the time of Rousseau.

    If they (the collectivists – the egalitarians) gain control (total control) of education and the CULTURE they can wipe out a thousand years of Christian civilisation in a couple of generations. Reducing humans to savage beasts – a pack of monsters.

    Saying “it can not happen to us – we are not black” is stupid, it can happen – and it is naught to do with skin colour.

    The left (the Cloward and Piven crowd and so on) do not want to just destroy.

    They see destruction (such as the destruction of the once conservative culture of black areas of Philadelphia and other cities) as a first step to building a new culture on the ruins.

    After “capitalist” culture is destroyed, a new socialist system will be built in its place.

    The problem with this is that socialism does not work – it does not work economically and it does not work culturally.

    But people such as Barack Obama do not understand that – and their lack of understanding of this key point is nothing to do with their being black.

    After all Francis Fox Piven does not understand it either – and she is white.

  29. Mark Steyn is good on the failure of wide areas of the modern West to reproduce themselves – either biologically or culturally (the cultural failure is key to the biological failure).

    And he avoids falling into racial fallacies.

    After all Mormons, Orthodox Jews, Southern Baptists (and so on) manage to reproduce (both biologically and culturally) – in spite of the vast (and international) forces of destruction trying to destroy everything they stand for (and to destroy the West generally).

    It is the “mainstream” of Western culture that has been infiltrated and undermined – by ideas DESIGNED to destroy it (to destroy the West).

  30. Very good Ian! I had not thought of exotic dancers such as Baker – and I must admit you are correct.

    Come to think of it the backside of certain forms of human tends (on average) to be firmer than some other forms of human – hence the “ping pong ball test” (does the ball bounce off).

    Europeans are better at swimming (ON AVERAGE) because we have more fat under our skin – but that does make it rather silly for us to “twerk” (Miss Cyrus please note).

    On the more general matters I should have pointed to some books and I did not (I am getting forgetful with age).

    “The State Against Blacks” by Walter Williams and “Ethnic America” by Thomas Sowell (the first economics the second work cultural) are often described as “classics” (and so they are), but being a “classic” is no good if a book is not read.

    The late Chris Tame told me (decades ago) that every leftist doctrine ignored works that were actually big sellers when they were first published – but then were forgotten because they were left off university and school reading lists (and so on) – the leftists did not have to refute counter arguments, they just put them down the “Memory Hole”.

    Let that not happen to “The State Against Blacks” (what government “compassion” really results in) and “Ethnic America” (how different groups of people do indeed have differing cultures, without it needing to be genetic).

  31. Thinking of the use the left make of the “Memory Hole” I am reminded of an answer that W.H. Hutt (he of “The Economics of the Colour Bar”) used to give – not about apartheid (which lasted so long BECAUSE OF the actions of the ANC, specifically the Orwellian named “Freedom Charter” whose collectivism scared most whites, and quite a few blacks, into supporting the National Party government), but about Keynesianism back home in Britain.

    W.H. Hutt was asked “how did the Keynesians win the debate?” and he always gave the same reply….

    “There was no debate, the Keynesians did not allow a debate – they just took control of the appointment of university lecturers and the setting and marking of examinations and that was that”.

    If anyone doubts this check how many university economics courses have the works of W.H. Hutt (or Henry Hazlitt – or any total rejector of Keynesianism) on their reading lists.

    Academic “debate” is like a BBC news or current affairs programme – only establishment opinions are normally allowed.

Leave a Reply