Saturday, November 17, 2007

Meat Eating in a Bad-Monkey World

A recent post from our friends at Pedestrian Infidel raises the question of civil war in Europe. Perhaps click on the graphic to see a trend in Europe that at least some and likely many people will find alarming: That Muslims are taking the place of native Europeans. Does it matter? Aren't all Europeans the same, i.e. European? What is the good of so-called nations, mere political fictions only constructed in the mind since 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia, a decidedly upper-class affair in the first place? Aren't we all the same, i.e. the Brotherhood of Man? Isn't objecting to the influx of Muslims from everywhere into Europe a signal that this writer is nothing but a racist and a neo-Nazi?Civil war. Let's think about it a bit. If one group of people have lived in one area for the course of Human history, for example, people living in what we would today roughly call Belgium, if they have lived there forever, in effect, does it mean they have a right to exclude Other people from living among them? And simply based on race, creed, color, and religion? OK, more things like unassimilated antagonism toward those who have some previous settlement to lay claim to, like criminality, like outright violence and ferality, of psychotic culture. But hey, aren't we all one?

I'd left the bank one day in Guatemala City with about $1,000.00 in my pocket, taking my time walking up the hill to 6th and 6th to go for lunch and a sit down. I was lightly armed in a city where many carry automatic weapons as a matter of routine, where nearly everyone, including grandmothers and children, has a machete, and few people seem shy about losing their tempers to the point that those who survive it often have some impressive slash scars. A dangerous place even for a seasoned traveler. So there I am, the street packed with people, and from both sides I'm surrounded by young guys. I can feel the rush as they swarm around me, and then they pass and pull down a big German and strip him of his watch, his wallet, and any sympathy he might have had for the locals. They brought him down like dogs bring down a bull. It was fast and it was brutal and it was the way it is. They didn't come for me, they went for the goofy looking big German ahead of me. Cause I walk like I mean it. And believe me, I mean it. It makes no difference if there are six against me. Still. I'll kill two of them before I'm out. And they know. So I can walk the streets of any nasty Third World shit-hole and not face six guys because they look for the weak, regardless of how big the weakling is. I'm big too, but I'm not the size of the German who went down. I'm big in the attitude, way big, bigger than any German I've ever met, though I don't doubt there are many like me. and there we have it: There are so me men big in this world, men in Europe, men who are as dangerous as I and likely very much moreso. I'm an easygoinglaidbackwestcoastkindo
fguy. Yeah. It's not that many guys couldn't kill me very easily; it's that they can't do it without getting hurt very badly in the doing. It doesn't pay. It pays to go after a weakling. If sometime I'm weak, then they'll come for me and that will be my time. I know. Those who would prey on me know it. They know today is not the day. They go for others whose day it is.

So, what's this? Am I some kind of tough guy? Do I think we are all a bunch of wild animals barely in control of ourselves forever in danger of being eaten by our neighbours? No, I'm no tough guy. I live in foreign nations among foreigners who tolerate me. I get on with most people. I don't care who they are so long as they're Human. Most people are like me in that respect, in getting along with most people and avoiding those who are unbearable. I never go out of my way to pick a fight. But there are some things I do fight for, even if I'm not personally involved. I even get hurt badly over it some times. Sometimes others get badly hurt because I get involved in things not directly of my concern. Last time I saw a guy dangling over the edge of the rooftop held by a guy who threatened to drop him, it was because the dangler had stolen a bottle of whiskey and a camera out of a back pack and the owner wanted his things back. I'll give you a hint, gentle reader: it was a fatal long way down. A bottle of cheap liquor and a camera. Mine is mine, and yours is yours, and his is his to the point my mate was ready and willing to drop a man to his death. Now, imagine taking my mate's nation from him and telling him it's all one world and he's nothing but a racist.

There are those who'll say that no one should threaten to drop a man off a rooftop for stealing some stuff. There are those who argue that there are no nations and that we mustn't stop people form coming and going as they please, especially coming and going to the Western world. Westerners did it to those who now go to the West, but Westerners did it through the force of gunboats not immigration. Fair is fair. We colonized the world, destroyed idyllic lands and peoples, and now that we have contaminated the world with our capitalist mode of production and raped Mother Nature we can't very well say to those we've victimized that they can't come to our lands to do what they can to live as well as possible. WE should give back some of what we stole. We should apologize for the harm we've done. We should welcome Others and learn from them, live among them, share our lives and good with them, especially since we stole most of what we have from them in the first place. We should celebrate our differences!

Except that there are still some of us who walk like big meat-eating monkeys.

Am I some kind of racist? Am I a neo-Nazi? Well, I'm not, but if I were I wouldn't care. I live among strangers and I mostly get on just fine with them. I don't care who they are or what color they are or whatever. But when a nation is invaded, I might go to the defense of those I see as needing my limited ability to help. Maybe I just like it. Maybe I'm not in the right at all in some or even many of the things I involve myself in. Maybe I'm a thug. Maybe thugs don't come for me because they recognize in me themselves. I would guess that to be the case.

What do we have when a nation is overtaken by foreigners? What do we make of Europe being taken over by Muslims? Maybe it's only thugs who care about such things and think it's a good thing to fight those who come and terrorize and kill at random. That might be the true case. I don't advocate fighting Muslims in the streets of European cities. I say leave things like that to the police. Not my business. Not my business till right up to the time when I see that it looks like a good fight for me, when it looks l like my own from whom I've been away so long are in need of my small efforts. When things I like are trampled and things my mates have are stolen, then I think it's time for me to step in and stop what I can stop. But I'm not the police. In some places I don't care because the police are no better than criminals themselves, and I do what I do and watch while others act in their own interests. Drop a thief off a roof? Well, he was drunk and he fell. Twenty bucks out of pocket and others know not to fuck with you. Priceless. Thug? Shrug. But in a legitimate state with a legitimate police force? Right up till the time it ain't. And how do we know?

When there are two claimants to legitimacy in a nation, then we know we must take sides and win or die. To win we must win, not wring our hands and weep bitter tears of emotional depths the likes of which men have never before seen. would we, in doing what our enemies do, be just as bad as them? Yeah, so? What's your point?

Maybe I'm just a fucking thug. Maybe we should negotiate our lives and futures with an influx of Muslims who will in time take over our lands the same way we took over theirs. That would be fair, cosmically so. I wouldn't argue with it. But there's this thing about me... this way I kind of am.... I just kind of walk this way and have this attitude that makes most people move out of the way when I walk down the street. I'm an old guy now. Nothing tough about me. But I got something. And I'm not the only one. There are lots of thugs like me still sitting around waiting for a day to dawn on the world when they'll come out and see the legitimacy of the state is claimed by two equal and opposed forces. Two sets of police. Two sets of citizens. Two sets of big, meat eating monkeys, face to face.

It looks like the weak are coming down like that German. Europe is falling under the claws and the fangs of the wild ones. Do I care? Not much. I'll find my day come-- but not this day. The tired beast of Europe falls to the dogs. Ta ta, arseholes.

In that tired beastly land that is Europe there are still the strong and the hungry, those with a taste for the vivid. Too bad that many are dogs. Euro-dogs, and they smell other dogs to run with. Runnin' with the pack, these dogs. Some Euro-dogs are, unbeknownst to themselves, poodle-dogs. Some are real dogs true and plain. They're dogs and they take down tired beasts and rip 'em. It's what dogs do. The dogs are small, and the dogs avoid the big beasts still in their prime. Run, little dogs. There are other animals in this jungle.

Today there is one legitimate national government in each European state not two opposed. If there's a conflict, if there's too many Mohammeds in Europe and the locals feel pinched? If there are two police forces or if the one turns on the people? Everybody's talking 'cept those that ain't. Maybe I'm a thug. Still, I walk around and mind my own business, living my life, peaceful and happy, no one taking me down. Peaceful. But that's today, and this, regardless of what fancy place I go or what fly-speck shit-hole backwater I find myself in, this world, it's still-- no matter where-- it's a Bad-Monkey World.

Friday, November 16, 2007

Straight Flush: Plumbing.


That's my description of the book on plumbing I'm currently reading, the one reviewed below. Spotty. I don't like parts of this book, it going into details I would definitely rather now go into at all. However, when one reads a popular history of plumbing one must be prepared to step around the dirty stuff. The book is an easy read, one I would have finished in four hours had it not been for the near constant interruptions that leave me just over half-way through as of this writing. The writing is magazine style, easy-breezy-cheesy, and not too involved for an evenings pleasure. It's about plumbing, and if one has an interest in public health, which is what draws me to this topic, this book is a fine dip into the nature of sewers and toilets and such, the very things that keep us from plagues and pandemics, that simple approach to living being one of the many benefits of Modernity.

At 238 pages, this paperback version is long enough to cover more than enough for most. Maybe home repair people will get a kick out of some of the anecdotes as the author tosses around personal asides and insights into plumbing, but for me the best parts are the historic, the brief forays into classical plumbing in the Asian sub-continent to Knossos to Greece and Rome; and the chapters dealing with public health in England over the past 200 years make it worth my while. For those of us who've spent time in Boston and know how vile the harbour was there's a nice chapter on how it was reclaimed, as was the Thames over the not too distant past.

Why read a book like this rather than simply take for granted the benefits of such things as waste-disposal? Let the author explain:

"Let there be no mistake. A clean modern water supply, working toilets, and environmentally safe sewage systems are what divide the successful from the unsuccessful, the comfortable from the uncomfortable, and the privileged from the unprivileged." You might know that at an intuitive level, but when one hears others extolling the virtues of "traditional cultures" and the sentimentalist philobarbrisms that condemn millions to death yearly, the hip and glib claiming how "happy" people are living in filth and mire, it's a fine thing to know more about the reality, to know the chilling realities of disease that wipes out villages and cities of living people and leaves in the wake more dying from the rot of the dead. To know the basics of why the modern world is better than not, that is to suddenly find oneself viscerally offended by the inanities of the foolish "liberal" cliche monger. Find out a bit about public health and the lack thereof, and then you'll find it's not tolerable to listen politely to fools at Manhattan cocktail parties mouthing smug sillinesses about "Natural and Authentic" people living "in a state of nature" and dying in filth because they don't know enough to keep their children alive.

About 200 years ago Britannia ruled the waves. Britain was the high point of Human culture, bar none. While Britain ruled an empire on which the sun never sat, "... by the early 1800s, more than two hundred thousand (private cesspools) dotted the city's [London's] alleyways and yards." So, one might think, it was a smelly and foul place to live. Ah, there's more. "England's infant mortality rate rose to close to 50 per cent. Babies were dying of infected drinking water perhaps killed by their own parents' waste, since, quite often, drinking supplies taken from the Thames were a stone's throw from a sewage discharge." Dead babies? It is a very unhappy sight, and one easily seen in most if not every Third World slum on Earth, places sprawling and spreading daily, all the while our Leftist critics of Modernity calling down capitalism and wealth as a curse on the people. Simple things we take for granted, sewers, the Left would deny the world because of "global warming" or a fear of "cancer-causing pvc plastics" or what-have-you. Modernity. This is a book to give you a quick and at least an occasionally fun view of the good of it-- and the bad of the lack.

Lots of interesting trivia here, some self-indulgent toilet humor, and some good facts and historical figures to make it plain just how good we have it and how good it should be for others if only we would encourage Modernity rather than wallowing in a trough of phony tears about how evil we are as exploiters and colonialists. The philobarbarists and sanctimonious pseudo-moralists, the neo-feudalist self-flagulents of sentimentality, flush 'em. Love plumbing.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Plumb Lucky. W. Hodding Carter, Flushed.

Days ago I wrote a lovely piece here entitled The Beauty of Sewers. I wrote also A Paean to Household Cleaning Products, and I even have somewhere in the bowels of this blog a piece entitled Crapper's Bida: Tres Moderne . I write sometimes claiming Leftists are caprophagists. I don't, however, think I have much interest in scatology, only in common cleanliness, in the life-giving benefits of pure water and ordinary sanitation. Yeah, shit happens, and that;s life; but it doesn't have to happen on my carpet. It happens better in bathrooms, thanks to modern plumbing, for which I am thankful, having been to too many places for too many years where such is not the case for the average person. Toilets and plumbing are things one only misses when there aren't any. Outside Modernity there aren't any. SAo maybe I get excited by what others take for granted. so, that thumping you might have heard across the land yesterday would be the pounding of my black heart when I found a book on Plumbing. Yahoo!

Here's one review. I'll be in the bathroom checking out the book itself. Muslims? They have a lot to learn .

The Art and Mystery of plumbing,
June 29, 2006
By wiredweird "wiredweird" (Earth, or somewhere nearby) - See all my reviews
Carter, a "great sanitation scholar," gives us an outstanding tour of the world of plumbing; several tours, actually. One is the historical tour, from classical times to the present day and beyond. Carter goes back to the Romans, whose pipes made of lead ("plumbum" in Latin) gave us the word for plumber. The trip through time make brief stops in the dark ages, where monks railed against pagan rituals of water and washing, while quietly enjoying the highest levels of sanitation around. Carter's next historical high points come in the 18th and especially 19th century, when Europe finally recovered and surpassed the Romans' level of engineering sophistication. The story continues into today, with recent innovations like the 1.6 gallon flush, and into some truly exciting possibilities for the future of human waste processing.

Another kind of tour lets us visit the technologies of waste removal. Up until the 1800s, that largely consisted of an open window, a shouted warning to anyone passing below, and a mighty heave of the "thunder mug," which left the streets in a condition that beggars modern imagination. From there, Carter works up to the high-tech digesters that biologically decontaminate Boston's sewage stream, and to practical demonstrations of recovering energy from methane given off, or even bacterial fuels cells that generate electricity directly.

It's also a story of social progress. People live longer and fewer children die of disease spread by fecal contamination, to be sure. Carter also describes low-tech innovations in India that promise to improve the lives of the untouchable undercaste, once they are freed from the necessary but "unclean" duty of clearing away the human waste of India's hundreds of millions.

Not least, it's a story of Carter's own adventures and misadventures with the maze of pipes behind his own walls. That's part of what makes this book so enjoyable: the enthusiastic and highly personal tone of his writing. It's a summary of his wide-ranging studies in what we do with the poo, but always light and readable. I fault his research for only one small point, his neglect of the New World before the European arrival. The Aztecs built some of the world's most populous pre-technological cities and dealt with their excreta much more effectively than European cities of the same size and period. Still, it's an informative and enjoyable look at what we'd usually rather not look at.

//wiredweird, reviewing a complimentary copy

Modernity rules!

The graphic? I've had it stored for a long time for no reason other than that I thought I might use it someday for something. Plumb Lucky!

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Racism: A Sorites Paradox

A Sorites Paradox. Race is a Sorites Paradox. Everyone knows what race is. We know that Laplanders are ... well, bad example. We all know that Armenians are Asians. No. OK, we all know Basques are Europeans. Uh, we know that Mexicans are Mongolians. We know that my folks from the north of Scotland are displaced Highlanders mixed with Danes, Swedes and Norwegians and Dutch, Flemish and French and my odd man out grandfather who was English; that my red-blond, blue-grey eyed, tall family, and then me looking like the milkman, are all Scottish, "cleared" from the Highlands to make room for sheep, exiled from Iceland and the Faroes and the Shetlands and the Orkneys to the eastern cities before fleeing to America where family members changed their names more often that they changed their socks, I'm Scottish. Clear? It is to me: I see my relatives in nearly every person I see in the north, mom here, dad there, uncle around the corner, gramma in the shop, aunt on the bus, and there staring me in the face is me, my own self looking right past me at others who look like me to the nose and brows. Race? Well, I know only what I'm not. Sort of. (There've been whispers and sometimes loud accusations of my great-grandmother being -- don't say this aloud, [German]). I don't have a UK passport, so I don't know how to make a good legal case for being Scottish, and I really haven't pursued it to make it legal because I really don't care. To me it ain't meaningful outside my own self. It's not an interesting way for me to divide up my reality in ways I can deal with. Protestant? Well, no, thought the family are, sort of but not really. Middle class? Well, yeah, within reason, if one splits my vagabondage and the high success of others with their bourgeois tendencies and economic class standing. So, in fact, it's all kind of very much unclear who I am and what anyone is if I look closely enough to see any of the details. One I do that I find myself looking at everyman as a Hooded Man. All I see is a Sorites paradox, reality dissolving into something I thought I understood but now certainly do not. No, I'm not African, I suspect. And I doubt I'm Asian, probably. It's a matter of a Sorites Paradox: to say that a man is bald because he has so little hair, but we don't know just which lost hair it is that makes him bald and which one we could replace to make him not bald; which grain of sand makes it a heap and which grain lost makes it not a heap. In fact, when I look at race,I am stumped and just don't know a thing anymore about it. I know what I'm not, and I suspect that's all most people can lay claim to. Thousands of years of Northerners? Yeah, that's about it. I'm not a southerner.

The far north of Scotland has claim to the barren wasteland of Sutherland. That's the Viking sense of humor at work. Norwegians? They're easterners. For me as a boy, North Dakota was as far east as I imagined anyone could ever go without falling off the Earth into the spoiled land of New York, somewhere adjacent to Hell. It's all a Sorites Paradox. To the average man none of the discussion of race makes any real sense once one looks at it. It all falls apart, built on nothing at all. But it is real in that one is not something else. One makes a choice, deciding that one is of ones own, and the collective definition counts, even if it's ephemeral. Language, location, ethnicity, religion. That makes me Scottish. Sort of.

So, being originally from the far North, I look at Milton worrying himself sick over his fear that the English in London, being so far north of Italy, were subject to stupidity because, as the Italians let everyone know, the climate and conditions of the north make people there stupid; and Milton suffered. To him and to many others, it was obvious that Italians were the most enlightened and brilliant people on Earth, those to the North degenerate and incapable of much, certainly not of greatness themselves. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton himself-- all stupid because they came from England. Obvious, and Milton believed it and suffered from it. That makes me particularly stupid, and Beowulf moreso.

Race? Yes. Ethnicity? Yes. Meaningful? Sort of. My Polish Jewish girlfriend from Texas? Uh, let me get back to you on that one.

We can see America as a racist empire if we choose to. We can see the extermination of Indians and the slavery of Africans as the greatest crimes in Human history if we choose to. We can see America as a racist nation, built on racism, imbued with racism, nothing but a racist entity from beginning to end. We can look at taking space from Indians and enslaving Negroes as racism. We can say Indians and we can say Negroes so long as they are not us, so long as we can say we are not those though we can't say exactly what we are. And we can call this racism, if we choose to. Is it? Obviously, Negroes and Indians are not Europeans. Sort of. Let's pass over the occasional Greenlander who was caught up in a current in his kayak who then drifted to the north Islands of Scotland, and let's forget those who came with Columbus and others as curiosities from the Caribbean. Let's not speak then of Moors like Othello. Let's forget Napoleon's wife, let's forget de Gobineau's mother. Let's not talk ever of Dumas and so many others. Because if we do, then our idea of who we are not is so ephemeral that we are really left with not much. We won't be able to talk of race. Let's not talk about America at all because we would have to talk then about New Orleans' population of people who we can't say anything racially and ethnically sensible. New York City? This is impossible. And Israel? Falashas? Ashkenazim? Arabs? Suddenly, when we try to discuss ethnicity we find there is nothing to discuss in real terms, only there is remaining the idea of "Well, not this, not that, maybe." It's a Sorites Paradox.

There is something obvious about race and ethnicity, but to claim we can define it easily by looking at someone,by pointing in the dark, by guessing, by wishing, by being happy or angry, that is to give in to stupidity, to bigotry, to worthless discrimination for no purpose other than to satisfy some lack in ourselves that has nothing to do with others. To look for, as Truepeers writes, for the one final scapegoat who will free us of our resentments and usher in utopia, that is the failure of the person. It says nothing about race or ethnicity. It speaks only of a deluded epistemology and a small personality. But there is something to speak of, if only we can get it right.

If we can begin to clear up this Sorites Paradox of race we might begin to address the issue of Nativism in Europe. That's our problem of the time.

Muslims in the West are making themselves so deeply hated by the majority of people, non-Muslims of all sorts, that only the most hate-filled Leftists and most hate-filled Rightists can stomach them. Most Westerners don't hate anyone they don't actually know, restricting their hatreds to husbands, wives, children, neighbors, bosses, co-workers,and so on. Most Westerners have other things on their minds that abstract hates of people from other racial or ethnic groups. We live mostly in cities where our privacy is our own and our publicities are shared by millions of anonymous strangers we don't even look at if we see them. Race and religion mean mostly nothing to most of us. But Islam, but Muslims generally, they make themselves an issue of concern to the majority, and we are beginning to openly hate them, more and more private people who have no concern or regard for those outside their small circles of acquaintances, they begin to hate Muslims.

Why do the majority populations of the West hate Muslims? I can't count so high as that. The reasons are daily expanded and compounded. Muslims seem to have a suicidal urge they can't fulfill without the West acting for them by exterminating them. And our hatred? Is it "racist." Not hardly. It's common sense and common Humanness to get fed up with bullshit, to lash out at hostility, and to kill the outrageously dangerous. 'Hello Muslims.' Yes, 'Hello Left dhimmi fascists and Right wing racists/anti-Semites.' Provocation? You bet. So, what do we do with the accusation of "racism?"

It's disingenuous to claim that Islam is not a race. No, Islam is not a race, it's a poligion. But to claim it's not a race is to claim it's not racial. Obviously most Muslims are not European ethnically. It matters. It matters when Muslims provoke a hatred of themselves in the West if not everywhere on Earth, which they do. In Europe we see Muslims enraging the locals more and more daily,and the Muslims are not European ethnically, ethnically even though all we might be able to say of that is that we don't know exactly what we mean but we know we mean not them. No, theoretically,Islam is not ethnic. In practice, very much so and obviously so. Most Arabs are Muslims, and few Swedes so far are Muslim. But many blond Albanians are living in Sweden, and one might find it difficult to tell them apart from any short distance. It's not obvious and it's not simple. Often we know that a Muslim is likely to be an ethnic type not like us if we are European and not something else. But who can tell a Sikh from a Muslim in a dark tunnel? Or a Swede? We go with what we see, and the Sorites Paradox tells us we don't know what we see. We might well be homicidally enraged by Muslims, and we might not know who they are and we might not see who we see. Seeing race and ethnicity isn't going to help us much in determining who is who and who we are pissed off at. When it comes to telling whose bald and who isn't where do we draw the line? We don't have a clue. There is no answer unless there in an answer, and then we still won't know if it's real or imagined. What if a bald man wears a wig? What if a hirsute man shaves his head? What is a Muslim is a woman bound? A boy? A slave? Mentally incompetent. A convert? A liar?

Let me admit that I see that Northern Europeans are not the same as Arabs, though i might be hard-pressed at times to say why they are different, and sometimes I might mistake them for the other. I might assume a Swede is a northern Protestant and an Arab is a Muslim, and I might well be totally wring, finding out later that the Swede is a Muslim convert and the Arab is a Chaldean. How would I know just by looking? I wouldn't. And I might be fouled up by assuming that a Swede is a European and an Arab is a primitive only to find the Swede is a Communist and the Arab is an American Republican exchange student. Again and again, we face a Sorties Paradox. Any time we assume we know we will very likely find out we don't in fact know a damned thing about what we're on about. And so it is with "racism."

Let's look for now at "nativism." Let's unravel a bit of the idea of racism as it's directed at those of us who wish for and work for an Islam free Western world, if not for a world free of Islam. Is a "Nativist" a "racist"?

The following excerpt from No Dhimmitude is on Nativism, "Nativism and Power,is an essential point of our discussion here.

In politics "nativist" refers to the socio-political positions taken up by those who identify themselves as "native-born".

Nativism is a hostile and defensive reaction to the flux of immigration. Though it surfaced first, gained a name and affected politics in mid-19th century United States, recognizably nativist movements have since arisen among the Boers of South Africa, and in the 20th century in Australia and Britain. In American history, nativism was always associated with fears that certain new immigrants might inject political and cultural values at odds with the American way of life.

The term "nativism" is normally applied only to nativists of European stock, and accused by some of being a nationalist element of racism. Similar ideologies espoused by non-Europeans are given other labels and are rarely connected to nativism in public discourse. For instance, while Mexican President Vicente Fox faults the US for not opening its borders, Mexico simultaneously cracks down harshly on "undocumented migrants" who breach her southern borders from other Central American countries. Yet no public discussion accuses Mexico of being nativist in immigration policies. Modern contention over ancient ethnic occupation of areas in Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Caucasus, sometimes based on tenuous linguistic and place-name hints, is given added urgency by assumptions that an urrecht of the earliest local population can justify nativist stances towards more recent arrivals. These issues are rarely assessed in terms of "nativism".

One such example that has succeeded in asserting their nativist rights, is Zionism. They have based their claim on the territory of Palestine on the Bible and created the state of Israel.

U.S. nativism appeared in the late 1790s in reaction to the political refugees from France and Ireland. After passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 it receded. Nativist outbursts occurred in the Northeast from the 1830s to the 1850s, primarily in response to a surge of Irish Catholic immigration. In 1836, Samuel F. B. Morse ran unsuccessfully for Mayor of New York on a Nativist ticket, receiving 1,496 votes. In New York City, an Order of United Americans (OUA) was founded as a nativist fraternity, following the Philadelphia Nativist Riots of the preceding spring and summer, in December, 1844.

In 1849–50 Charles B. Allen founded a secret nativist society called the Order of the Star Spangled Banner in New York as a result of the fear of immigrants. In order to join the Order a man had to be twenty-one, a Protestant, a believer in God, and willing to obey without question the dictates of the order. Members of the Order became known as the Know-Nothings (a label applied to them by newspaper editor Horace Greeley, because no one would admit to knowing anything about the secret society). The Nativists went public in 1854 when they formed the 'American Party', which was anti-Irish Catholic and campaigned for laws to require longer wait time between immigration and naturalization. It is at this time that the term "nativist" first appears, opponents of Americanists denounced them as "biggoted nativists." Former President Millard Fillmore would run on the American Party ticket for the Presidency in 1856. The American Party included many ex-Whigs who rejected nativism, and included (in the South) some Catholics. Conversely, much of the opposition to Catholic and Chinese immigrants came from other immigrants, who can hardly be called "nativists."

This form of nationalism often identified with xenophobia, anti-Catholic sentiment (anti-papism). In the 1840s, small scale riots between Catholics and nativists took place in several American cities. In California, Irish immigrants vented their resentment against the Chinese. Nativist sentiment experienced a revival in the 1880s, led by Protestant Irish immigrants hostile to Catholic immigration. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first of many nativist acts of congress to limit the flow of immigrants into the U.S. The Orange Order was the center of nativism in Canada from the 1860s to 1950s. The second Ku Klux Klan, which flourished in the U.S. and Canada in the 1920s, used strong nativist rhetoric. In 1928, nativist bias was an important feature of the defeat of Presidential candidate, Alfred E. Smith, a Catholic. During World War II, 'nativist' undercurrents fueled the Japanese American Internment.

American nativist sentiment experienced a resurgence in the late 20th century, this time directed at 'illegal aliens,' largely Mexican resulting in the passage of new penalties against illegal immigration in 1996. After terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C. in 2001, nativist feeling and islamophobia were amplified and directed increasingly toward individuals perceived to be either Arab and/or Muslim; these found themselves the target of rhetoric and a request by nativists to tighten border controls. The early 21st-century American movement that is self-characterized as "Immigration reduction" attempts to distance itself from any suggestion of Nativist motivations.
It likely strikes many as obvious that there is a conflation of nativism and racism. I beg to spit on such a thought. Such reductionism is typical of the stupidity of many on our so-called intellectuals. The KKK is not America; the BNP is not Britain; the FN is not France. The IRA is not Muslim. Should the Irish, as one example, make concessions to Muslims in Ireland by way of sharia in Ireland? Are the Irish, if they do not concede sharia privilege to the Muslim community in Ireland, nativist and racist? And if one argues such, does it really make any difference?

The only argument for or against sharia privilege in Ireland is who has power. Any other argument is naive and sentimental. There is one rule: "All political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

The Islamic umma is at war against the world at large. It is between the natives and the Muslims. No, Islam is not monolithic, and no, not every Muslim is violent; but yes, it only takes a small number of dedicated people to rule. We are for ourselves in opposition to Islam or we are on our way to Islam and dhimmitude. It's not fair. We should all just get along and live in peace and harmony. In the real world there are real people who are our enemies. They might win. It is a matter of power.

The above excerpt is from a long piece on practical power and nativist privilege. The short version is that those who came first and made things as they are have a great say in how things should be therefore, those new-comers not liking it having the option of leaving. It's perhaps bigoted but not "racist" to fight for ones privileged state in the order of things. In the final analysis, guns rule the day. So it will always be. Our question is who will have the guns and who will they aim them at and why. Is it a question of "racism"? Is it a question of natural right? What can we support? We won't likely support "racism" which isn't a real thing in the minds of many if even few. It does have to do with "race." But mostly it has to do with "what is to be done?" in a practical sense of not knowing exactly what we face and how we live within our moral means. We can't rightly over-spend our alloted fund of morality. We have to be careful about what we do and why. If we accept nativism to an extent,and if we don't accept "racism" because we just don't know what the Hell we're discussing if we discuss it, then where do we go? Can we even accept Nativism? If not, then how much cultural relativism and multiculturalism will we put up with in the face of Islamic jihad and demographic catastrophe? Should we even care in a world of such impersonal cites and alienation so long as we can live our lives in some quiet for the course of our own lives and to Hell with the future?

But even after all this length we still haven't gotten to "racism." It ain't what you might think it is. It's a paradox of a whole nother kind. It's important that we understand things as they are so we can think them through and deal with our problem effectively and sanely if it comes to hard bargaining with "others."

Racism? If we don't kow what we mean by it, let's not say we do just yet.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Neo-Nazi Racist Phantasma

No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a part of the continent." There are no autarkies, not even the Communist nightmare idiocy of North Korea. Nothing is alone anymore and without influence and without connection to other X. There is no racial purity, no such possibility, and no sane person thinks there should be. To think otherwise is by definition insane. To think we can "purify" nations of ethnic outsiders is silly and pointless to discuss. Those who take racialist conspiracy theorizing seriously are not our friends and not worth complaining about any more than would be the shouting, filthy guy on the street corner. But it does come up.

There is a concern regarding the native European anti-jihadist movement. Is it composed of neo-Nazis? Is it filled chock-a-block with racists? I find this discussion to be bizarre. Neo-Nazis? That's so far removed from normal living that only the most uninformed or deluded could consider it. But "racists"? Ah, that we can go on about at some length.

":Racism." Boaz, Benedict, Mead, et al have made our conversation nearly taboo. Why, and who really knows these people in the first place? Why bring up names like that? Because without knowing them, who they were, what they thought and wrote, how they came up with our modern understanding of racism and cultural relativism we will forever find ourselves speaking without knowing, taking without understanding. White Guilt didn't begin with the aftermath of the Nazis. It began with the anthropologists of the post war era, post 1918. It began among a small and dedicated group of intellectuals who decided to correct the wrongs of colonialism and social Darwinism by promoting philobarbarism and cultural relativism. "Racism" as we know it, didn't begin with de Gobineau, as it should have; it began with the anthropologists who came out of the anti-slavery movement, women who worked with religious reformers to ensure an end of slavery in America. It came from those same women finding that after the end of slavery, women had fewer rights than Negroes. It came from intelligent, educated, and organized women barred from the traditional professions who found themselves in positions of authority and influence only in the field of baby-sitting on a grand scale, i.e. as social workers. Benedict and Mead were such women, from such milieu. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has," as Margaret Mead wrote. It is sinister, it is in that sense "left." This small gang of Gnostic minders changed the course of our intellectual history far more radically than did the architects of the Holocaust. They are the ones who hijacked the idea of "racism" and turned it into what is used today as a catch-all pejorative to quell dissent, to deny freedom to the masses, to entrench themselves ever further in the ground of povertarianism. There is no "racism" in the sense our screaming Left uses the term. "Ethnic cleansing" so-called in Jugoslavia was no such thing. There are no ethnic "Bosnians." There are no specific Serbs different from Croats. Rubbish. There is no racism involved. No ethnic profiling. Rubbish! Rubbish! They are only different in religions and sects therein. It's the anthropologist echo we find claiming "racism." This canard of racism doesn't fly. It's a manufactured tool of social engineering created by a small group of intellectuals in the 1920s. Racism? This is not de Gobineau. This is aggressive American Gnostic sentimentality browbeating the working class for quiescence and the financial elite for money. When we speak today of "racism" we do not speak of the same thing as the anti-Semitism of the Germans and Europeans generally. "Racism" in the West is meant as anthropology and philobarbarism. The crazies don't think of anti-Semitism as racism because it isn't: it's anti-Semitism. Racism? That's a different story altogether.

Slavery predates Social Darwinism by the entire length of Human history. But when we talk about "racism" today we mean, whether we understand it or not, the theories of the social Darwinists. Ganging up on and enslaving others who are weaker is no news anywhere. The idea that it is OK and right to do so due to "the survival of the fittest" is what we react to today and call racism. That ship hit the sand long ago. It no longer floats. Pretending that anti-Semitism and the "racism" of social Darwinism is the same thing the anthropologist reacted to is to conflate the obviously different for no legitimate reason. Viciousness is ordinary. The only remarkable thing about the Nazis was the efficiency of their genocidal acts. The so-called racism of the colonialist Europeans is not of scale or kind the same. The casual contempt one finds in colonialist memoirs is a natural xenophobia of any sane person who wishes to survive. Anyone who wasn't xenophobic until one hundred years ago in major cities in western Europe must have been insane. Outsiders meant threat, disease, murder, invasion, or the tax-collector. Xenophobia, even today, is smart. So is our moderation in our Modernity, our blessing that we do not have to run to and kill a stranger on sight before he comes to do us harm. But xenophobia is still an integral part of the Human experience, even for those who spend their lives traveling the world solo. One must depend on ones own-- even in the Modern cosmopolitan megalopolis. Even in a hotel in Africa. Even in a parking lot at the supermarket in Kansas. To sentimentalize the "Other" is nothing more than a meal ticket, or more accurately, a meal thesis. Confusing what is natural and right in Human behavior, xenophobia, with the maniac genocide of the Germans against the Jews is not convincing. The Nazis didn't act from xenophobia, nor did they act from a feeling of missionary Modernist evangelism. Boaz and Mead, et al, reacted to the latter, not to the former, when they began their campaigns against "racism." Bringing the light of Modernity to the ignorant masses is not the same as exterminating everyone. It ain't the same. Contempt for other cultures and the people of those cultures is not Nazi-ism. Only an idiot would think so, and only a foolish idiot would say so. Slavery is normal; extermination of ones enemies is normal; fearing those whom one does not know is normal; but in our blessed Modernity those things, those acts, those attitudes are not normal, not permissible, are outright bad. But they are not the same as being a Nazi. Being a xenophobic Swede or Swiss or Dane or Darfuran is not the same as being a neo-Nazi. Slavery of the weak and primitive is the nature of things in a primitive and more visceral world than ours today. Doing good for the benefit of those less fortunate than ourselves, those who are primitive and uncivilized, that's the mind of the Gnostic Left at work, the mind of the Gnostic Right at work, the mind of the minder at work. Those things, if unlikable to us in our Modern time, are still understandable and within the scope of our experience. These are things we can control as mature and civilized affluent beings in a state of economic and social benefit. We can afford to be generous with others, and if we aren't, so much the worse for us. If we don't "do enough" to satisfy the missionaries among us, that is not racism, not evil, not worth discussing. That doesn't make us Nazis. Rampaging across the world murdering Jews is not the nature of things, it is a madness of primitives gone amok. A medical definition of the term might clarify: Amok: A syndrome first reported in the Malay people, usually male, consisting of a period of brooding followed by a sudden outburst of indiscriminate murderous frenzy, sometimes provoked by an insult, jealousy or sense of desperation. The person who runs amok may also die in a form of murder-suicide. Confusing or conflating Nazi genocidal madness with ordinary Human behavior, however repugnant to our Modern sensitivities, is not productive. Bashing others for assumed or supposed "racism" without defining or understanding the term is a failure on our part.

Most groups are uniform, and there's no good point in denying such an obvious reality. Skateboard kids do not hang out with investment bankers. Muslims do not hang out with Baptists. Koreans do not hang out with Japanese. Why? Because they are not the same kind of people. And if millions of skateboard kids invaded our city... wait a minute. If millions of Muslims invaded a small and mono-ethnic nation of centuries of in-breeding, what would be the mistake in thinking the natives won't like it if the invaders are ill behaved? Invaders? Yes, of course. To go into in a harmful and intrusive way. Mom in your bedroom is an intruder. She has invaded your space. Go figure.

To sentimentalize is always dishonest. To force ourselves to pretend we are enthused about strangers is a hopeless exercise in deception. Unless one hopes to have sex with a stranger that stranger is a threat until proven otherwise. And even with the promise of sex it's not always a good hope that two strangers will get along for more than a day. To change quickly and fundamentally is harmful and suspect. To allow millions of strangers into ones homeland is outrageous. To o pretend we like it when strangers some to our places and do odd things is to lie to ourselves and to offend the decency of others who do not so lie. To adulate is to cultivate contempt for oneself in place of the feeling of self-righteousness one expects. To fawn over strangers is to make them hate you. The phoniness is degrading and despicable. If the stranger is not acculturated to city living amongst a variety of strangers as we in our Modernity are, he is likely to want to cut the throats of such pointlessly groveling sycophants. To pretend to like "multi-culturalism" is to lie in the face of others and to oneself. To dislike the different is normal. To wish to improve those one finds less than oneself is normal. To dissociate oneself from strangers who don't get ones jokes is normal. It's not "racism." It's not Nazi-ism. To kill people over inconsequential differences of origins is to be mad. Those who don't get my jokes? Don't get me started.

European "racists"? Who can blame them? And who among us really doesn't get the 'Palestinians' and the rest who hate the Jews in the Middle East? Yes, the Israelis are unobtrusive and confined to an ever shrinking area. Yes, one might understand a few years of antagonism as one group moves in and rubs against the older. Italians and Irish faced it in Manhattan, and they eventually became Americans like any other Americans. But it's only New World nations that can have such multi-ethnic groups becoming one. Jews will never become Arabs, and no one should expect it to be so. Nor should one expect Arabs to obsess for generations like rabid dogs over a group of outsiders living in Jerusalem. No one should expect 300 million Arabs to go berserk over a few Jews, insane to the point of killing their own children over self-created Nazi-esque disproportion. Would a group of investment bankers be expected to murder a skateboard kid in a meeting on the street in a suburb? Even if the damn kid lived there it's not likely. But why should they like him? If the suburb is overrun, then one group must prevail and set its perimeter and defend it against intrusion. That's living la vida loca, folks, and it's real in spite of the sentimental trash one is expected to parrot in pubic, smiling as one does so.

We can't escape strangers in our world. We have to accommodate them. They too have to accommodate us. We don't have to like every one. We do have to get along. And when we can't we have to separate civilly. How do we decide who to separate and who from? What criterion is decisive? "Race"? Language? In-house customs? Religion? "I was here first"?

This particular sentimental episode in history is over. People won't continue buying it. The rule of society by nineteenth century spinster nannies is just about over. Hurling epithets like "racist" is going to earn one a sharp sharp slap. Racist? Get over it. Nazi? That's from outer space. However, reason and sense might not prevail after all. There might be a surge of Reaction among delusional Leftists that could rival the French aristocrats of the Napoleonic era and beyond. In fact, those are the very enemies we've always faced, though they don't recognize themselves as such. The question is "What is to be done?" Are we going to kill a whole lot of people like the Jugoslavs did? If we do we won't find ourselves at rest in our own homelands; we'll find ourselves at war with the primitives of the world, a bifurcated world of those who are Modern and those who are primitive. And that is insoluble. It's not about race. It's about how do we survive our differences without killing the other side in toto. What is to be done?

Monday, November 12, 2007

God's Funeral and the March of the Dhimmis.

And they composed a crowd of whom
Some were right good, and many nigh the best...
Thus dazed and puzzled 'twixt the gleam and the gloom
Mechanically I followed with the rest.

Thomas Hardy, "God's Funeral"

I often claim that most people believe what most people believe, meaning that most people are decent and sociable and law-abiding-- regardless of the system in place. For the most part we should applaud that. Mostly we should be thankful that most people agree with the majority most of the time. We should be thankful that most people stick to their opinions long after the facts have shown them how wrong those opinions are and how much better it would be to change them. How so? It is because revolution is a serious problem for people, causing often more harm than good, and then being very difficult to rid ones society of once in place. The Russian Revolution only took a matter of days to become a reality. It took the mighty Russian people 70 years to get rid of the Communists once in power. Most times, doing nothing, accepting things as they are, working within the system, being cautious and prudent, is the best thing one can hope for. Slow, slow, slow. A revolution throws everything upside down and then all crashes on the ground. That is seldom a good solution to anything. You can gauge it yourself by asking if you'd do that to your own mind and your own life. Chances are good that once you'd wrecked your life and rearranged it all you'd find it wasn't really that different after all. You'd still be you. So it's mostly a good thing to be calm and rational and put up with the things we don't like and to slowly try to fix what we can. Creeping socialism at a gallop in America? Let's stay calm.

And then let's look at what a mess we have. Good gravy, who made this mess? The world-at-large hates us, half our own hate us, and the rest mostly feel a need to apologize. Do I feel a need to vomit? Yes, I do. But I'm going to stay calm. I'm going along with everyone else because even if I know better than the best and righteous I can't decide for the nation even if I could. If change for the better comes it'll come slowly and from the depths, and it'll last generations. We'll still be us and little will get wrecked on the way. No revolution, just some gradual fixing. Slowly, slowly, slowly.

That doesn't mean never do a fucking thing!

We cannot allow the fools on the Hill to run our nation into the muck just because they are the greatest people on Earth, those the best and the brightest, the ones who know what we do not, ie, how to govern and live our lives. No revolution but no passivism, not lying down dying in the mud. The whole of the world's people might well hate us, and so what? Did we like them? Do we care? Do they matter? Oh, the Left are perfects, alright, being for the good of all and for world peace and pot in every chicken. On the Left we find some right good, and many nigh the best.... At least, that's what the programme reads. Looking out the window one must question the reality of these perfects, these Gnostic minders. Too many follow along mechanically, assuming the best of the worst of Men. The Left lies we hear might sound pretty, if one is enamored of "world peace" but the facts on the ground, the destroyed living beings of the socialist state, that tells a different story. The good? The best? The question is how to rid ourselves of these fools, how to do so without ripping apart our nation. We do not need another Civil War. We do not need a revolution, having had a good one already. We could use some change, and soon enough to save us from being destroyed from within to the point those without come to finish us off. Some things just can't wait. We have to rid ourselves of many of our so-called leaders, our intelligentsia.

Our gradual revolution, the one we must have to save our nation, is one of attitude, not of guns and bombs. Our attitude is one mistaken, of thinking well of the devious and dirty, of the Gnostic minders, the Left dhimmi fascists. They who take on the mantle of the good and the best are not such things. It takes an attitude change to examine them for what they are and to act accordingly. Mark Twain gets it right again: "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

The Left? They are not good and they are not the best. Bang thy head!

It's right and good that most people accept the status quo, that most people go on with everyone else in public matters. It's good that people follow mechanically the good and the best. The shame of our time is the good and the best are such evil demons. It's time for the better to gradually wake up to the fact that this is not the 19th century, that we do not live in a robber baron economy, we do not live in an era of sweat shops, we do not have lynchings. We have a highly sophisticated Modernity that improves daily, and it is under attack by our own intelligentsia who try to destroy it and our lives in the name of "social justice" and "world peace" and other pretty sounding sentimentalities. Of course most people like the sound of such noise. But is it real? Not a bit of it. People follow mechanically because others follow ahead of them. And it's good. It's good that we gradually turn around and march back to reality.

No, not all of us all at once. But some of us, and more each day, till slowly. slowly, slowly we make our way back to the light of Reason. Yes, the Leftists will howl and throw abuse at us, call us names, even fight with us in the streets. So what? What does it matter if you, maybe your friend and a neighbor, are out of step? "If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away." Henry David Thoreau, Walden.

You probably don't want to march mechanically to the cemetery to bury God just because others, even the good and the best are leading the way.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Brothers in Arms

These mist covered mountains
Are a home now for me
But my home is the lowlands
And always will be
Some day you'll return to
Your valleys and your farms
And you'll no longer burn
To be brothers in arms

Through these fields of destruction
Baptisms of fire
I've watched all your suffering
As the battles raged higher
And though they did hurt me so bad
In the fear and alarm
You did not desert me
My brothers in arms

There's so many different worlds
So many different suns
And we have just one world
But we live in different ones

Now the sun's gone to hell
And the moon's riding high
Let me bid you farewell
Every man has to die
But it's written in the starlight
And every line on your palm
We're fools to make war
On our brothers in arms
Except when our lives and the lives of
Our brothers in arms depend on us.
Mark Knopfler, "Brothers in Arms."

“Why was the poppy chosen as the symbol of remembrance for Canada’s war dead? Prior to the First World War few poppies grew in Flanders. During the tremendous bombardments of that war the chalk soils became rich in lime from rubble, allowing ‘popaver rhoeas’ to thrive. When the war ended the lime was quickly absorbed, and the poppy began to disappear again.
Each November, millions of poppies blossom in Canada. They blossom on the jackets, dresses and hats of nearly half the Canadian population and they have blossomed over 80 years, since 1921. The poppy is the symbol that individuals use to show that they remember those who were killed in the wars and peacekeeping operations that Canada has been involved in.”

-The Royal Canadian Legion